Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREAT YARMOUTH OUTER HARBOUR BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Read the Third time, and passed.

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)

SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL (By Order)

BEXLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

SHOREHAM PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 5 June.

MILFORD HAVEN PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [18 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate to be resumed, on Thursday 5 June.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (STANSTED) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [24 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate to be resumed, on Tuesday 3 June at Seven o' clock.

HARWICH PARKESTON QUAY BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28 April] That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate to be resumed, onTuesday3 June at Seven o' clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Criminal Statistics

Mr. Clelland: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which police force districts in England and Wales there has been a reduction in the total number of crimes since 1978.

Mr. Jim Callaghan: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the increase since 1978 in the number of victims of offences of violence against the person.

Mr. Gould: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes in England and Wales in 1985 were not cleared up.

Mr. Boyes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he wilt publish in the Official Report the police force districts in England and Wales in which the total number of crimes has risen by (a) less than 25 per cent., (b) less than 33 per cent. and (c) more than 50 per cent. since 1978.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Crime throughout the country has been rising for more than 30 years. Recorded crime has increased in all police force areas since 1978, and I shall publish in the Official Report a table showing the percentage increase in each force area between 1978 and 1985. The number of offences of violence against the person recorded by the police in England and Wales in 1985 was approximately 122,000; 40 per cent. more than the number recorded in 1978. This compares with an increase of 42 per cent. in offences of violence against the person between 1973 and 1978. It is not possible to provide a figure for the number of offences recorded in a year which are not later cleared up, because some offences are recorded and cleared up in different years. but the difference between the number of notifiable offences reorded by the police and the number of offences cleared up in 1985 was 2·2 million.

Mr. Clelland: In the run up to the last two general elections the Conservative party promised the people of this country security in their homes and safety on their streets. As the Home Secretary has just informed the House that things are substantially worse than when the Conservative party came to office, may we have an assurance that similar false promises will not be made at the next general election?

Mr. Hurd: The Labour party will not get very far if it tries to persuade people that crime was invented in 1979. The number of recorded crimes has been increasing steadily for 30 years. When we came to office we found a demoralised and under-strength police force, a grossly neglected prison service and courts that had inadequate powers. In all those areas, as we have shown again this week, we have steadily strengthened the public's defences against crime.

Mr. Jim Callaghan: In 1979 the Conservative party came to office on a policy of law and order. In the light of the disturbing facts about violent crime that the Secretary of State has just given the House, what practical measures will he take to allay the fears of the public, and of old-age pensioners in particular, who are now virtual prisoners in their own homes in inner city areas? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do?

Mr. Hurd: Hardly a week goes by without us making an announcement or taking measures directed towards that end. This week's announcement is that, once again, we are launching a substantial expansion of the police forces in England and Wales in order to provide better protection for the public.

Mr. Gould: As two thirds of all reported crimes have not been cleared up, may we not conclude that the police, through no fault of their own, are unable to keep pace with the rising tide of crime? Does the Home Secretary admit that the belated and inadequate increase in police resources that has recently been announced merely serves to emphasise the seven wasted years under this Government in the battle against crime?

Mr. Hurd: When we took office we acted at once to remedy the gross deficiencies in the strength of the police service, and there was a long period of police expansion. Now, after a pause and following a thorough study of the proven needs of the police forces, we have announced a new programme.
If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Opposition would do more for the police, he must accept that if they continue to say that they will give priority to everything, they will, in fact, give priority to nothing.

Mr. Boyes: Does the Home Secretary's reply not show categorically that Tory policies are not working? Does it not also show that the Government can offer neither hope nor solutions to those living in deprived areas? The Prime Minister may go to the two dozen or so people who voted Conservative in Scotland and utter the words "care" and "caring" 15 times in her speech, but the citizens of this land know that she does not mean it. They are looking towards a Labour victory at the next election, so that the next Labour Government can make the streets and people's homes safer places.

Mr. Hurd: No electorate in its senses, having looked at Labour's past record and at the attitude of so many Labour Members to the police today, would support the Opposition if the priority of the electorate were greater protection against crime.

Mr. Lyell: In addition to strengthening police manpower, increasing and improving police powers and increasing the powers of the courts, do not the public have a role to play in combating crime? Have not our neighbourhood watch schemes, which have been greatly expanded, worked so well in London that last year burglaries fell by 11 per cent.?

Mr. Hurd: That is certainly true in some parts of the country. The House will be pleased to note that burglaries across England and Wales fell by 3 per cent. last year. There are now 9,500 neighbourhood watch schemes—twice the number of a year ago—and they are playing an important part in crime prevention.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Although we all regret the increase in crimes, especially crimes of violence, will my right hon. Friend applaud the work done by victim support schemes, such as the one in Waverley, which have given practical and realistic help to the victims of crime?

Mr. Hurd: Victim support schemes are becoming increasingly important. I am delighted that the Government are able to give substantial help to the National Association of Victims Support Schemes and that, for the first time, we are now also able to give some help to local schemes.

Mr. Gale: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recently announced increases in police manning will be welcomed by all those with a genuine interest in the reduction of crime? Is he further aware that there has been a dramatic decrease in the incidence of drink-related crimes in Scotland during the past 10 years since Scotland changed its licensing laws? Will he confer a similar benefit on the people of England and Wales?

Mr. Hurd: I think that that is another question. I made the Government's views of principle known to the House earlier this week. I believe that the case for a reform of the licensing laws has been established. Timing is a different matter.

Mr. Alex Carlile: We should all welcome the increases in police manpower announced recently by the Home Secretary, but does he not accept that grudging reality is rather different from the rhetoric of the Prime Minister at last year's Tory party conference? Why has the Home Secretary not accepted the views of Sir Kenneth Newman on the need to increase police manpower in London?

Mr. Hurd: The Metropolitan police, the Police Federation and many others would like a greater increase. At the beginning of last autumn we set in hand two thorough reviews—one for the Metropolitan police and the other for the forces outside London. It was as a result of those reviews of need — precisely the criterion that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister laid down—that we made our careful announcement this week. We look forward to increases in the operational strength of police officers of 2,600 outside London and 1,800 in London.

Sir John Farr: The House must agree that it is important to increase the number of police officers and, if possible, restore the bobby on the beat in those areas where he has disappeared, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is equally important to equip the police with the latest most scientific and modern anti-crime devices available?

Mr. Hurd: I agree. I know that my hon. Friend has an interest in some of those projects. I hope shortly to receive the conclusions of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis about the equipment needs of his force. We have had some proposals from him already. As soon as I receive the considered report we shall move to take decisions as quickly as possible.

Mr. Dubs: Despite the Home Secretary's fine words, is it not true that over the past seven years the Government have utterly failed on law and order? Although the Home Secretary has paid lip-service to crime prevention methods, the Government have done nothing about methods for preventing crime. Is that not one of the reasons why the crime wave is out of control?

Mr. Hurd: That was an amazing statement by the hon. Gentleman, who is usually careful in putting forward matters. The fact of the matter is that under my predecessor, and now, we are giving increasing prominence to crime prevention, as witnessed by the seminar held at No. 10 Downing street in January. That was a thoroughly practical effort, which we are now following up, designed to ensure that the different professions and interests understand what they can do in practice to make our homes, streets and places of work safer. If Opposition Members, instead of conniving and going along with their thoroughly destructive attitudes towards the police, would join in the crime prevention effort, place by place, the cause would be greatly advanced.

News International Plant, Wapping

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the establishment of an inquiry into the latest incidents at Wapping; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend has written to me to suggest an inquiry into the conduct of demonstrators at


Wapping. I have also received representations from right hon. and hon. Labour Members for an inquiry into police action. I do not consider than an inquiry would be the right way forward. Those who have been charged with criminal offences are being dealt with by the courts. The way forward lies in sensible co-operation between the police and responsible trade unionists to reduce disorder and prevent violence, which only the trouble-makers want.

Mr. Adley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and for his letter. Is it not clear that many of those who went to Wapping went there prepared for and intending to commit acts of violence, and acts of violence against the police, yet, when the police defended themselves, they were immediately accused of brutality? Did my right hon. Friend notice that within minutes almost of the events taking place, Labour Members, including an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, were falling over themselves to attack the police and accuse them of brutailty? Does that not make a mockery of the new-found role of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who seeks to paint himself as the spokesman of the party of law and order—an attitude that is more appropriate to the Whitehall theatre than to the Palace of Westminster?

Mr. Hurd: It is extremely worrying that so many leading members of the Labour party, inside and outside the House, especially in London and Manchester, should take every opportunity, without proper investigation, to blacken and swipe at the police. What we are trying to do in Wapping, which is becoming a thoroughly dangerous situation, is to try to persuade the print unions, which have a dispute with Mr. Murdoch, to exercise their rights of peaceful picketing and demonstration in such a way that they do not attract to the scene the trouble-makers to whom my hon. Friend referred. I hope that it will be possible for them to pursue their dispute, if that is what they want, without attracting violence to it.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Home Secretary aware that Murdoch is nothing more than a cheap little crook who, through his actions, has caused the social disruption and economic distress among printers that we are witnessing in Wapping? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the difference between Labour and Conservative Members is that Labour Members who went there came back and told the truth about what they saw, as opposed to the blind prejudice and ignorance of Conservative Members? Will the Home Secretary hold an inquiry, because Labour Members have nothing to hide?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman does not even try to hide the fact that he and a number of his London colleagues—though not all—immediately assume that when there is any trouble the police are at fault. He has a long record in that regard, and yields only to his former leader on the GLC. Parliament has provided means, through the independent Police Complaints Authority, for a thorough investigation, supervised by the independent authority, into any complaints that may be made against police operations. That is the proper remedy for any genuine complaints.

Mr. Marlow: Would not an inquiry possibly be of great benefit, because it might also prove that not only are there Militant Labour Members of the House, anti-police councillors such as Bernie Grant and pro-terrorist prospective parliamentary candidates such as Ken

Livingstone in the Labour party, but, indeed, that Socialists are involved in organising violence in our capital city against our police force?

Mr. Hurd: We do not need an inquiry to establish those facts, because those concerned repeatedly condemn themselves out of their own mouths. What is inadequate is the response of the Leader of the Opposition, who thinks that it is enough to give an occasional gentle rap over the knuckles, when it should be made clear that the people taking this line will not be supported in their efforts to be elected to this House on the next occasion. —[Interruption.]

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us keep the temperature down.

Mr. Soley: Would not the Home Secretary be behaving a little more responsibly if he took this opportunity to remind many of the hotheads on his own Bank Benches that many police officers, including senior police officers, are also deeply disturbed about the way in which events got out of control on 3 May? Indeed, his own Minister has taken up some of the suggestions made by the Opposition that are necessary to deal with this problem. Does he agree that the very small minority of people who were shown on the police video to be throwing things came from Right-wing parties, as shown in the advertisement in National Front News? Would it not be all important if the Government stopped using the police to deal with the industrial consequences of their economic failure in many industrial relations disputes throughout the country?

Mr. Hurd: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point. As he knows, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has absolute operational independence and, therefore, it is not for my hon. Friends or for me to give him instructions as to how he should conduct his duties and responsibility for protecting those who wish to work in a particular place. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first point. Every sensible person, as well as the police, is concerned at the pattern that has developed at Wapping, and that is why I have spoken about it several times in the last few weeks. I certainly give credit to those Opposition Members who have been seeking to throw light, rather than darkness, on the situation and who have been helping to establish some contact — not yet quite sufficient—between the police and the print unions. As I indicated in my main answer, I believe it is down that path that a solution to the policing side of this problem can be found.

Police Priorities

Mr. Hoyle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department has carried out any research into differences in perceptions of police priorities between the police and the general public; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): The Home Office has carried out or funded a good deal of research into public attitudes to the police, and the wishes of the public appear to be broadly in line with police priorities.

Mr. Hoyle: Is the Minister aware that independent surveys, including the one by Merseyside council, have shown that there is a different concept in the minds of the


public as to what they would like from the police and what they are given by the police authorities, particularly chief constables? Does he agree that if we are to conquer the fight against crime we must have the collaboration, co-operation and confidence of the public in the police? Despite what he said about having carried out surveys, will he look again at this matter to discover what the public really want from the police?

Mr. Shaw: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. If he looks at the studies that were done in Merseyside and in the constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), he will see that the public are most concerned about immediate emergency response, crime investigation and deterrent presence on the streets. Those are the three priorities that they have in common with the police. Where I part company from the hon. Gentleman is in the belief that locally substituted so-called police watch committees can produce anything of worth in the fight against crime, and the sort of rubbish that is produced in the Greater Manchester area is a disgrace which I trust the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) will get rid of.

Mr. Forman: Are not police priorities already set out, at any rate in the Metropolitan area, with admirable clarity in the various divisional and district plans? Are not those a good way for senior police officers to consult, and take soundings from, the local population and to respond to concerns about such vital problems as vandalism and hooliganism?

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is right. He will be aware that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, in designing his force goal for 1986–88, took into account a wide range of opinion polls as well as the needs of the police. In his goal he sets out the reduction of criminal opportunity, the enhanced detection of specific criminal offences and enhanced support for the victims of crime. I am sure that everybody would concur with those attitudes.

Mr. Madden: Will the Minister confirm that the priority to recruit more regular police from ethnic minorities remains a high priority in his Department? In this context, will he confirm that his Department will support the expansion of the police cadet force in West Yorkshire, which is seen as an important way to recruit more young people from the ethnic minorities into the regular police?

Mr. Shaw: On the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I am very much interested in that suggestion. However, cadet forces are extremely costly and the police authority in West Yorkshire must take a view on that proposal.
As to the first part of his question, I assure the hon. Gentleman that chief constables all over the country, as well as in the Metropolitan police area, are doing everything that they can to increase ethnic recruitment. The Metropolitan police had a recent exercise, as a result of which 139 applications were received, which was encouraging, but in the end few applicants decided to press on. I hope that they can be encouraged to do so.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my hon. Friend agree that nothing has done more damage to the public perception of the police than the attitude of many Labour councils? Does he also agree with the perception of many

of my constituents in Norwich that the police are burdened too much by administrative paperwork? Is he aware that many of my constituents, particularly when vandalism occurs on housing estates, would like a greater police presence there and available when required?

Mr. Shaw: Yes, and there is much room for improvement in the recruiting of police in Norfolk, where the police authority has for some time allowed a substantial range of vacancies to exist. I trust that they will now be filled.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister agree that it is the perception of the public that children should enjoy the benefit of police coming into schools to explain dangers to them? Will the Government accept the amendment that has been carried in the other place to enable that to be ensured?

Mr. Shaw: I am sure that the answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is not for me, but in regard to the objective that he seeks he must be right. Surely every education authority should welcome police presence in schools to deal with the many pressures with which young people are faced.

Mr. Hayes: Now that the Labour party is somewhat humourously masquerading as the party of law and order, will my hon. Friend ensure that as many members of the public as possible go into Labour party committee rooms, where they will see a poster on the walls of most of them saying, "It is far better to break the law than to be poor"? Will that not show the public the perceptions of the Labour party towards the police?

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is right. There is far too much paranoia about the way in which the Labour party seems to view the police. The police are the custodians of the law, and everybody in government and in opposition should support that concept.

Child Abduction

Dr. Godman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will discuss with chief constables and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis the co-ordination of police intelligence and information in crimes involving the abduction of children.

Mr. Giles Shaw: In December 1982, following the Byford report on the case of the Yorkshire ripper, procedures were introduced to ensure the fullest police co-operation and co-ordination of activity in the investigation of apparently linked major offences, including cases of child abduction. These procedures use specially developed and compatible force computer systems to store and analyse information. We are satisfied that they meet operational requirements.

Dr. Godman: With regard to part II of the Child Abduction Act 1984, is the Minister satisfied that close regard is paid by English police authorities to Scottish court orders? Does he agree that this is especially important at English airports and seaports?

Mr. Shaw: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I should like further details of individual cases where he thinks that that is not being correctly done. I assure him that the procedures are being tightened up and that police forces now have compatible systems of communication to enable this to happen quickly.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: The number of children who go missing each year is a matter of great concern. More than 20,000 children went missing in 1984, many of whom were abducted. Should not my hon. Friend promote a missing persons register for children, to include details of the circumstances in which they went missing or were abducted, so that the circumstances of the crime can be compared and a crime pattern analysis unit developed along the lines of the one that is working so well at Hendon?

Mr. Shaw: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's substantial interest in this subject. However, I have explained to him that it is unnecessary for police national computer systems to be altered to provide adequate data for proper crime pattern analysis. I remind him that in 1984 there were 99 cases of child abduction, of which 71 per cent. were cleared up quite quickly.

Firearms and Crossbows

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state for each year since 1978 the number of crimes in England and Wales involving the use of (a) any firearm, (b) a shotgun and (c) a crossbow.

Mr. Giles Shaw: In 1984 a total of 8,376 notifiable offences were recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used. Of these, 994 involved the use of a shotgun. Figures for earlier years are given in the criminal statistics published annually. Information on the use of crossbows in crime is not recorded centrally.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does the Minister accept that both the police and the public are legitimately concerned about the increase in the number of violent crimes in which weapons are used, but that the Police Federation's proposal that life sentences should be imposed for the carrying of firearms rather than, as is now the case, for their use would reduce the incentive for criminals to escape without using them and that in that sense it would be counter-productive? Would it not be far better to impose on the buying and keeping of shotguns restrictions similar to those that are currently applied to the buying and keeping of firearms?

Mr. Shaw: On the latter point, I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. There is disquiet, because it is thought that there is a substantial difference between the security requirements that govern both categories of firearms. However, he will be aware that the correct policy is to balance the requirements of the legitimate users of shotguns and the requirements of safe keeping, which should not inhibit their use. As to the hon. Gentleman's first point, he will be aware that substantial changes are being made to the sentencing policy for these offences. He will also be aware that in relation to the Criminal Justice Bill, which is shortly to come before the House, there is a proposal that those who carry firearms in furtherance of crime should be subject to a maximum life penalty.

Mr. Thurnham: When serious crimes are committed by children under the age of 14, will my hon. Friend consider strengthening the powers of the magistrates' courts and also lowering the age of discretion so that they can be dealt with?

Mr. Shaw: I appreciate that this is a complicated matter. My hon. Friend is quite right when he says that

many crimes are now committed by young people, The average age of male criminal offenders is 15. Therefore it is important to examine what should be the correct penalty. However, I do not believe that it would be right to make the sweeping change that my hon Friend suggests.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister explain why we allow the manufacture, import or sale of crossbows in this country, particularly in view of the increasing number of crimes that are being committed with them and the number of injuries that have been caused to livestock? Surely we should simply ban crossbows, which cannot be justified.

Mr. Shaw: There is a substantial difference between the attitude towards this problem of Opposition Members and that of the Government and the Conservative party. Many people are engaged in perfectly legitimate sporting activities which could include the use of crossbows. Provided that sporting facilities are available, with proper membership of properly organised clubs, crossbows can be used in perfect safety. The law relating to the abuse of weapons in a public place is satisfactory.

Mr. Stanbrook: Should we not consider the mandatory imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for the illegal carrying of firearms, a sentence to be served consecutively in any event where another sentence has been imposed?

Mr. Shaw: I take note of my hon. Friend's request, and that matter will surely be discussed.

Mr. Soley: Is this not yet another example of the Government failing to put their money where their mouth is on crime prevention? Is it not a fact that the Minister has already turned down a suggestion from me that we set up a proper committee in the Home Office to look at the needs and duties of legitimate users and balance them with the needs of new legislation on shotguns, crossbows and pistols? Have they not turned it down without even considering it or the implications for police officers and for the public? Why will the Government not treat the matter seriously and set up a committee at the proper level in the Home Office to make recommendations for the House to consider?

Mr. Shaw: We are indeed discussing the problem of crossbows, their distribution and their sale with the trades concerned. As we did in the case of martial arts weapons I trust that we shall achieve a level of control over distribution that will prevent them falling into illicit hands. If the hon. Gentleman represents the party of freedom and fairness, I assume that when it comes to major public order offences it is the freedom to throw bricks and the fairness is that they are all regulation size.

Sir John Farr: Does my hon. Friend accept that the vast majority, if not all, of these crimes were committed with illegally held firearms? Handguns are now coming into use to an increasing extent. Will he confirm that the ordinary law-abiding firearms owner in Great Britain is in no way involved?

Mr. Shaw: I can tell my hon. Friend that there are 820,000 certificate holders of shotguns. I am confident that all those will use their weapons correctly and will seek to keep them in a safe place. I remind my hon. Friend and


the House that there are a substantial number of uncertificated shotguns in circulation, many of which are imported.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the Minister aware that crossbows and other deadly weapons can now be bought all too easily by anybody through mail order advertisements in a magazine called "Survival Weaponry and Techniques", which disgracefully W. H. Smith is selling all over the country? What will he do about it?

Mr. Shaw: The absolute number of crossbows in circulation is extremely small. The absolute number of incidents involving injury in relation to crossbows is extremely small. I have already set in hand an investigation as to what more can be done. In relation to the law governing abuse of weapons in public places, criminal offences would be committed.

Civil Defence

Mr. Leigh: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if emergency planning officers were asked to take any action in response to the Chernobyl nuclear incident.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Our information is not yet complete, but we know that several local authorities had to take specific action and a number had to respond to inquiries.

Mr. Leigh: Did those emergency planning officers who were employed by nuclear-free authorities have any more success in reducing the effects on their population of radiation from Chernobyl than their colleagues in Conservative areas who over the years have been given the resources to make provision for their populations? Did the radiation from Chernobyl part, as the waters of the Red sea, round nuclear-free cities? Is not the Labour party imposing a cruel hoax on the British people by pretending that self-indulgent unilateral motions on nuclear freedom are any substitute for proper civil defence?

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend has clearly kicked the Labour party where it hurts in relation to nuclear-free zones. He will be aware that the nuclear-free zone is a public hoax which has no relationship whatever to the proper protection of our citizens in time of emergency in peace or in war.

Mr. Campbell Savours: Is the Minister aware that, while the people of west Cumberland are committed to the future of nuclear power, there is some concern there as to what might happen if an emergency arises from Sellafield. Can he give an absolute assurance that the planning programmes to ensure the fullest security of that part of west Cumberland are in place, that there are no deficiencies and that the Government are perfectly satisfied with the arrangement that exists?

Mr. Shaw: I understand fully the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I can assure him that as a result of all the aspects of the Chernobyl incident there will be a complete review of the precautions and the plans that should be made. In relation to my responsibility in the Home Department for civil defence emergencies, I have already written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment asking that we participate in such discussions.

Visitors (Overstaying)

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps he proposes to take to prevent visitors to the United Kingdom overstaying their period of leave; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): We have no proposals for major changes in our present arrangements which place the weight of identifying likely overstayers on the judgment of immigration officers at the ports of entry. My right hon. Friend announced to the House on 26 March that he has authorised increased resources for this year. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to pursue with vigour our selective investigations into apparent overstaying after entry.

Mr. Proctor: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that in a recent letter to me he indicated that 5 per cent. of the visitors from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan who were checked into the country were not subsequently checked out? If that percentage were spread over the millions of visitors from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan last year, it would lead to the number of overstayers being about 50,000. What further action will my hon. and learned Friend take in yew of that figure?

Mr. Waddington: I do not think that my hon. Friend is explaining correctly the purport of my letter. What I was saying in the letter was that we put on to the computer people who enter and who are in certain categories. Certain categories of people who enter are supposed to be checked out. As no fewer than 40 million people go through our embarkation controls every year, it is not surprising that often people who have left the country have not been registered as having left. That is a very different kettle of fish.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I am grateful to the Minister for putting his hon. Friend in his place, but will he accept that the real problem with immigration control is that far too high a number of people who are refused visas would be perfectly legitimate visitors to Britain?

Mr. Waddington: Most visitors to Britain, and certainly visitors from the Indian subcontinent, do not require visas anyhow. What the hon. Gentleman is talking about is the fact that some people are refused entry when they present themselves at our ports of entry. The truth is that the whole system of control depends on the skill of immigration officers and on their ability to distinguish in the great majority of cases between bona fide visitors, who can be relied upon to leave when they say they are going, and others who cannot be relied upon to leave. All the evidence tends to prove that our immigration officers are very skilful in identifying those who cannot be trusted to leave.

Mr. Budgen: When my hon. and learned Friend next makes a statement on the subject, will he please comment on the recent report of the Home Affairs Select Committee, which shows that very substantial fraud is still being perpetrated by those who attempt to enter the country from both India and Bangladesh?

Mr. Waddington: I have read the report, and its conclusions are very important. I hope that all hon.


Members will pay heed to what is said. There is, or course, no doubt that there is a great deal of fraud. It is right that that should be reflected in the report.

Mr. Janner: Does the Minister accept that the real problem at Heathrow is not those who are let in who should not be, but to those who are held up who should not be? These are genuine, decent visitors coming to see their families and friends, many of them in my constituency? Does the Minister accept that many of them are still harassed, persecuted, held up and treated with a lack of decency or compassion instead of being given the proper welcome that they should have?

Mr. Waddington: I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have put his question in that way. He should be emphasising that 99·8 per cent. of those who present themselves at our controls at Heathrow are admitted with no trouble and that 99 per cent. of all visitors from the Indian subcontinent who present themselves at the controls are admitted without any trouble. The hon. and learned Gentleman does no service to anyone by trying to paint a picture of genuine visitors to Britain having trouble entering our country. That is not the true picture.

Mr. Marlow: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the greatest civil liberties is the civil liberty of the vast majority of the population of this country who do not want visitors to come to this country to abuse our systems and take advantage of our generosity when they have no right to do so?

Mr. Waddington: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that there should be a sensible, humane and efficient system of control. We have always taken the view in this country that it is better to have firm control at ports of entry than to have an all-pervasive system of after-entry control. I do not think that Opposition Members should cavil at people being questioned at Heathrow. If we have a softer line at Heathrow, we shall finish up with a much fiercer system of after-entry controls, which people will not like.

Mr. Dubs: A few minutes ago the Minister said that there was a "great deal of fraud" at the points of entry to this country. That is an unwarranted slur on the many honest people who come here. What evidence does the Minister have for that claim?

Mr. Waddington: I did not say anything of the kind. My recollection is that the Select Committee report relates to control in the Indian subcontinent. The report concludes that there is a great deal of fraud, and that has been demonstrated on many occasions. The hon. Gentleman has been to the Indian subcontinent and knows that many people come along every year—and this is one of the strange phenomena involved in the matter—who admit that they have not told the truth on a previous application and who wish to make a new application in which they intend to come clean.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Hirst: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 May.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had

meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Hirst: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when she spoke last year of her determination to reduce inflation to 3 per cent. this spring her claim was ridiculed by the Opposition, who said that that could not be done ? Does she therefore agree that last Fridays's announcement that inflation is down to 3 per cent. and falling is welcome news, especially for savers, the elderly and business? Does she also agree that the present low level of inflation is in marked contrast to the appalling levels which followed Labour's last spending spree?

The Prime Minister: Yes, that is a remarkable achievement and is greatly to the credit of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is also of particular benefit to pensioners, who can be certain that their savings will not be plundered as they were during the lifetime of the last Labour Government.

Mr. Healey: Mr. Speaker, you will recognise that I am in an unfamiliar position. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is elsewhere making certain that the next opinion poll gives the Labour party an even bigger lead.
Will the Prime Minister get in touch immediately with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in Brussels and instruct him not to agree to new American chemical weapons as the NATO force goal and to make it absolutely clear that Her Majesty's Government will under no circumstances accept the deployment of such weapons in Britain as that would represent a major escalation of the arms race and be even less acceptable to the British people than the use of F-111 bombers for the attack on Tripoli?

The Prime Minister: I notice that the opinion polls said yesterday that the Centre Right parties would lose in Holland. I notice that the result yesterday was a convincing victory.
As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the United Kingdom has received no request from the United States for the deployment of chemical weapons. If any such request were made we would have to consider it under all the circumstances of the time. Britain has manufactured no chemical weapons, and the United States has manufactured none since the 1960s. The culprit is the Soviet Union. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would concentrate his efforts on criticising the Soviet Union instead of doing everything to reduce Britain's capacity to deter it.

Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the extreme Right party in Holland, which is the equivalent of her party in Britain, lost heavily in the election, but that the Dutch Government had the courage to make it clear that they oppose the acceptance of new American chemical weapons as a NATO force goal and are completely opposed to the deployment of such weapons in Europe?

The Prime Minister: Holland decided to accept cruise weapons. In fact, the party that was for cruise weapons—[Interruption.] Will the right hon. Gentleman never criticise the Soviet Union for stockpiling such weapons? Is he always concerned to give aid and comfort to it and to make certain that we have nothing to deter it in its use of them?

Sir Peter Blaker: Does it not require rather difficult mental gymnastics to believe in deterrence in relation to nuclear weapons and not in relation to chemical weapons?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It also shows the unwisdom of unilateral disarmament. We unilaterally disarmed with our chemical weapons many years ago. Far from following suit, the Soviet Union still stockpiles and increases the production of its chemical weapons.

Dr. Owen: Does not the case for Britain retaining its nuclear capacity and for NATO having nuclear weapons mean that we can denounce the folly of the Soviet Union in stockpiling chemical weapons and that Britain should have no truck whatever with the deployment or stockpiling of chemical weapons by the United States as part of its NATO force levels?

The Prime Minister: If we were asked to deploy them we should have to look at the request at the time and have regard to proper defence and deterrence. It would be folly to tell the Soviet Union now what our answer would be. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman embroils himself in that folly.

Mr. Terlezki: In view of the all-party visit to Moscow this weekend, will my right hon. Friend send a message to Mr. Gorbachev telling him to get rid of 300,000 tonnes of chemical weapons, because he is the guilty one who is stockpiling and using those weapons? Will she also ask Mr. Gorbachev to tell the delegation the truth about what happened during the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl in the Ukraine, to ensure that all the other nuclear power stations in the Soviet Union do not go the same way as the one at Chernobyl?

The Prime Minister: The delegation is under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Lord President, who will carry my views to Mr. Gorbachev. It will be saying something about how strongly we feel about chemical weapons and the fact that, even under our chairmanship, the disarmament negotiations are not getting anywhere, and the fact that the Soviet Union is still stockpiling them. With regard to Chernobyl, I think that we are making headway under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency and I hope and believe that we shall get the full facts and be able to profit from what we learn.

Mr. Wallace: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wallace: This year Britain has the chairmanship of the chemical weapons disarmament committee at Geneva. Does the Prime Minister not think that it is unworthy of our chairmanship for us to agree to the further American production of binary chemical weapons? Will she give us some hope by telling us, instead of agreeing to the proposition, what steps she proposes to take during the period of British chairmanship to get a treaty to rid the world of these weapons?

The Prime Minister: No such request has been received. I do not know how we would deal with it if it were received. We would have to look at the request in the light of all the circumstances at the time. I have made that perfectly clear. We shall have our own proposals in the chemical weapons negotiations, and we have been pursuing proposals for challenge inspection anywhere. Of

course, the Soviet Union would not agree to that. Again the fault rests with the Soviet Union for continuing to manufacture and stockpile chemical weapons, and the censure should be on the Soviet Union.

Mr. Yeo: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Yeo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large number of people believe that the need to improve the quality of public services is as great as, and possibly even greater than the need to make further cuts in the basic rate of income tax? In the light of this will she apply any additional resources that are generated by economic growth in pursuit of both those objectives rather than in the exclusive pursuit of one of them?

The Prime Minister: We have strict priorities within total constraints. Everyone must live within constraints, otherwise, whether individuals, Governments or businesses, they will soon be in difficulty. By having strict priorities we have been able substantially to improve the resources devoted to the Health Service and to pensions. That must be done under overall constraints and priorities. Many people who receive below average earnings are asking for increased pay because they think that their net take-home pay is too low. The way to increase the net take-home pay of such people without adding to industrial costs is to reduce the standard rate of income tax.

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hamilton: At the Tory party conference in Perth last Friday the Prime Minister declared that she would set about slaying the dragon of unemployment. Will she remain conscious of the fact that in Scotland 380,000 people are unemployed? After the shipbuilding and British Rail redundancies that figure will be considerably increased. Will the Prime Minister accept the advice of some of her senior Back Benchers and change her policy? More important, will she flex her muscles and get the British Steel Corporation to spend the £90 million that is urgently required to save Ravenscraig and Motherwell?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I have replied to questions about shipbuilding on a number of occasions. The acid test is how many orders we can get in a world where there are very few orders to be had because there is so much surplus tonnage still swinging on the buoys. There are surplus ships to the tune of 42 million tonnes, and that is equal to the output of all the world's shipyards for two years. The hon. Gentleman asked about Ravenscraig. He is aware that it is being kept in commission during the lifetime at least of the current corporate plan of the British Steel Corporation. On the general problem of unemployment,
the only answer to the economic problems which have dogged Britain ever since the war is to improve the performance of our manufacturing industry. That means higher productivity, better design, more vigorous salesmanship, more reliable delivery and servicing.
That is what the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said on 4 February 1977.

Sir David Price: In the light of that reply, has my right hon. Friend received a message that came out of yesterday's debate on shipbuilding, that the whole House requires action against the Japanese, who speak the language of free trade and practice protectionism? In conjunction with our European colleagues, will she put an act together to defeat this current yellow peril, which has destroyed industry after industry in Britain?

The Prime Minister: Regarding my hon. Friend's comments on the Japanese in relation to shipbuilding, he may be thinking of the nuclear vessel order which went to the Japanese. I believe that that matter has already been referred to the European Commission on the ground that the price was such that it may amount to dumping. Regarding the fact that Japanese markets are not as open as ours, we have already made our views known vigorously. That is a reason for wanting to hold GATT negotiations as soon as possible.

Mr. Eadie: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Eadie: Does the Prime Minister recall the answer that she gave on Tuesday about the National Coal Board's refusal to re-employ 40 victimised miners who went to a tribunal, which recommended that they be reinstated? Does she recall that her reply was that NCB activities were governed by an Act of Parliament? Is she aware that the NCB is in breach of that Act of Parliament in relation to those victimised miners? Will she instruct her Attorney-General to investigate the matter and report back to the House?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman has anything like that to say, he should say it to the appropriate quarters. The management of the NCB on detailed decisions—the hon. Gentleman knows this because he operates the legislation——

Mr. Eadie: It is in a parliamentary Act.

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will listen, I shall answer his question. The management is not for the House, but for the NCB.

Later—

Mr. Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does it arise out of questions?

Mr. Pavitt: Yes, Sir. In answer to questions, Mr. Speaker, you will have heard the Prime Minister state that when the Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation goes to the Soviet Union the Lord President of the Council will convey her views to Mr. Gorbachev. Mr. Speaker, you are the custodian of the traditions of this House and for 100 years it has been the tradition that the Inter-parliamentary Union is Parliament, and is different from the Government. Therefore, this is an infringement of an old tradition. Is there anything that you can do to protect the independence of both the IPU and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in these circumstances?

Mr. Speaker: As President of the British branch, I have sent a message to my opposite number in the Soviet Union.

Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have rather a lot of business before us.

Mr. Faulds: Very briefly. I am a member of the executive of the IPU. You, Mr. Speaker, and the other members of the IPU will know that on a foreign visit it is essential to differentiate between the views of the IPU and the views of the Government. It is a fact, which now, unfortunately, perhaps cannot be corrected, that the Prime Minister was totally incorrect to put that reading on the visit to Moscow.

Mr. Speaker: I have no knowledge of other messages which may be sent by other people.

Ministerial Statements

Mr. John Prescott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order on a statement which the Paymaster General is to make this afternoon to the House on a White Paper called "Building Businesses—Not Barriers", and which was made in the other place at 11.30 am.
You will recall the concern expressed on both sides of the House about unelected Secretaries of State in the other place making statements. To deal with that difficulty our procedure has undoubtedly been for statements to be made at the same time in both Houses of Parliament. Today the practice of issuing statements at the same time after Question Time has been broken. Today the statement was given by the Secretary of State for Employment in another place after its Question Time on the last day of the sitting at 11.30 am. Despite the Opposition's protests that that would mean that the elected Members of this House would learn of the contents of that statement through the media—a practice deplored by both sides of the House—the Government insisted on making the statement, and gave the justification that the rules of the other place required it.
Apart from the fact that the statement could have been given in both Houses at another time, the Secretary of State for Employment, in making a statement to the other place, has clearly given a calculated snub to the rights of the elected Members of this House.
It now becomes clear that a second statement is to be made in the other place at 3.30 pm, so it would have been possible for two statements to be made simultaneously in both Houses. Therefore, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that this Government decision is a calculated snub to the democratically elected rights of Members of this House, and I ask for your protection.

Mr. Speaker: I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to make that point, but I am not responsible for what goes on in another place.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may be helpful if I offer a few words of explanation. The deregulation statement today is an important announcement, which I am sure the House will wish to have before the spring Adjournment. To do that, we had to have an announcement on the last sitting day of the other place. That means that it sits at a different time, and earlier than this place. It is an unusual and extremely rare occurrence. I recognise that this causes genuine difficulties. Perhaps we could discuss this through the usual channels here and in another place to seek to ensure that it does not occur again.

Mr. Denis Healey: On the point which has just been made by the Leader of the House, I understand that the House of Lords is hearing a Government statement now at 3.30 pm. The point which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) made is that it would have been perfectly possible for both statements to be made, as normal, at the same time. I hope the Leader of the House will return to that matter. On the business statement, could I ask the right hon. Gentleman to note that at a time—[HON. MEMBERS: "We have not heard it yet"] Very well.

Later—

Mr. Alan Williams: May I follow up the point made by the Leader of the House? With your good offices, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Leader of the House to convey the feelings of this House that it is quite unacceptable that the Commons should have a secondhand statement and dog-eared answers. We bitterly resent the fact that this House is losing out because of yet another struggle between two publicity-mad Cabinet Ministers, both of whom are jostling to get their statements out first so that they may be first in front of the television cameras.

Mr. Biffen: There is a serious problem here; I accept that at once. I hope that the matter can be resolved by proper consideration through the usual channels. I do not think that the somewhat over-generous rhetoric which the right hon. Gentleman has just used will enable that to be done. In answer to the specific point about the statement on the Calcutt report, to be made shortly by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and which will be subsequently repeated in the House of Lords, that is not strictly analagous with the statement which was made by a departmental Minister who sits in the House of Lords, and which is then followed by a statement in this place. There is a problem which can be resolved by proper and measured considerations through the usual channels, and I hope we may proceed in a constructive sense.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ron Leighton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Points of order take time out of business questions. I think that many of these questions could be raised with the Leader of the House at business questions, because they are patently not matters for me.

Mr. Leighton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I will take it, but it must be a matter for me.

Mr. Leighton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that, today, I heard Lord Young in an interview on "The World at One" with Sir Robin Day discussing his statement in another place before we had it in this House? I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is that right and proper?

Mr. Speaker: I heard it, too. I share the views that have been expressed and I also listened with care to what the Leader of the House said about them. I do not think I can say any more.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Well, I will try.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the truth — we all know what has happened—that the Secretary of State for Employment insisted on making a statement himself this morning?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no idea.

Business of the House

Mr. Denis Healey: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for the first week after the recess?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the recess will be as follows:
TUESDAY 3 JUNE—Opposition day (14th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "Government Economic Policies and the Level of Unemployment".
Motion on the Channel Tunnel Bill (Procedure).
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 4 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Building Societies Bill.
Motion on the Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations.
THURSDAY 5 JUNE—Second Reading of the Channel Tunnel Bill followed by a motion for committal to a Select Committee.
FRIDAY 6 JUNE—Private Members' motions.

Mr. Healey: I ask the Leader of the House to note that at a time when the Government's own figures show that their economic policies have brought growth to a halt in Britain, and when one industry after another is announcing massive redundancies, the Government have not been willing to defend their policies and the Opposition have had to compel them to do so by using one of their Supply days to debate unemployment and economic policy as soon as we return after the recess.
Secondly, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday refused to give a penny more for our education system at the very moment when the new Secretary of State for Education and Science was promising it more resources, can the Leader of the House ensure that the Government make an early statement on whether they will make more money available for educational building, books and equipment to restore a system which Her Majesty's inspectors, in their report which appeared yesterday, have found to be in near-terminal decline?
Thirdly, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the terms of the motion for committal of the Channel Tunnel Bill will be available to the House? Can he assure us that there will be ample time for petitioning?
Fourthly, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Government will be making a statement on the report of the Top Salaries Review Body?
Finally, as the present policies of Her Majesty's Government on South Africa are robbing that unhappy country of what may be its last chance of peaceful progress and threatening to destroy the unity of the Commonwealth, can he assure the House that it will have an opportunity to debate these matters before the recess, and especially before the critical meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers at the beginning of August?

Mr. Biffen: I shall take the points of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) in reverse order. I recognise that there is great interest in having a foreign affairs debate as soon as possible after returning from the recess.

Mr. Healey: South Africa.

Mr. Biffen: Such a debate will certainly be able to encompass South Africa. I take note of the right hon. Gentleman's comment about the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting.
As is customary, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be answering a question later this afternoon on the Top Salaries Review Body's report. Further copies of a letter from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to all Members about the Government's response to the report will be made available through the Whips offices and the Vote Office.

Mr. Bowen Wells: When?

Mr. Biffen: Later this afternoon.
I understand the interest in the procedures relating to the Channel Tunnel Bill and I can confirm that both the motions on procedure and committal will be tabled later this afternoon. The Government will allow a generous amount of time for them to be debated. I believe that when the terms are seen, they will be judged to be fair in respect of petitioning.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East asked also about education policy. I am sure that he will join me in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) on his appointment to the important Department of Education and Science. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he will not be disappointed. My right hon. Friend is one of nature's communicators. He has a good story to tell and he will be anxious to use the facilities of the House as appropriate. The right hon. Gentleman was obviously looking back nostalgically to the days when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I do not for one moment believe that the latest statistics from the Central Statistical Office about the rate of growth in the economy vindicate his lurid phraseology. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall be deploying similar arguments in the debate planned for Tuesday 3 June.

Mr. Healey: I shall resist the temptation to follow the right hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even the Leader of the Opposition may normally ask only one question. But does the right hon. Gentleman wish to raise a point of explanation?

Mr. Healey: I have two questions to ask about what the Leader of the House just said.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am very sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman is not in order.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: As we have a new Secretary of State for the Environment, whose views on that subject appear to be somewhat ambiguous following the Channel tunnel planning application, will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House give an assurance that there will be an early debate on the green belt? In that way those of us who are greatly concerned will have an opportunity to elucidate our views.

Mr. Biffen: I have known my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for many years, and ambiguity is the last characteristic that I would ascribe to him. But I shall, of course, draw his attention to the interest expressed in having a debate on the green belt. I can say only that it will not take place during the week chat we return.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 873, bearing the signatures of 122 hon. Members, which deplores the production, possession and use of chemical weapons?
[That this House deplores the production, possession and use of deadly chemical weapons; and calls on Britain to reject United States plans for their further production, which will be ratified at a meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence Ministers in Brussels on 22nd May.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that, of the countries involved today in Brussels in the decision-making process in NATO, this country alone has had no full-scale debate on the matter in its national Parliament? Will he redress that imbalance, so that we can show that the majority of people in this country are opposed to any decision to deploy chemical weapons here, or in any European country?

Mr. Biffen: I have indeed studied early-day motion 873. I am sure that the hon. Lady will appreciate that the merits of the topic were considered during Prime Minister's Question Time. I cannot very helpfully add to that. However, we should be having a debate on the defence White Paper soon, and that might be an appropriate occasion for her to make her arguments.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: As we are now to have two late-night, and perhaps all-night, sittings on 3 and 5 June so that the Government can try to pull the Channel Tunnel Bill out of the quicksands of confusion into which it has sunk, will my right hon. Friend consider softening that preliminary skirmish in the long war of attrition that will accompany the legislation, by allowing greater latitude to individual petitioners and by making some concessions to them that will give them adequate time to put their petitions before the House?

Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. Friend says, but I think that I might be allowed to observe that gentle threats of all-night sittings are hardly the most obvious tactic to win friends and earn sympathy. Nevertheless, I realise that my hon. Friend speaks with great feeling and with genuine constituency interests. I take account of what he said. The motions are of course amendable, so my hon. Friend may consider that possibility.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that a group of very angry ex-service men who claim that they were disabled through negligence, and a group of parents of dead ex-service men who claim that they were killed through negligence, went to see the Secretary of State for Defence, together with hon. Members from both sides of the House? They were given a hearing, but they have not now heard a word from the Ministry of Defence in 13 weeks. They rightly feel that they have been treated with contempt by the Secretary of State. Will the Leader of the House have a quiet word with him and tell him that those people are getting very angry and that they deserve an answer?

Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman has raised that point with me before. I recognise its force, but he will realise that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is the last person whom one would wisely accuse of being contemptuous of the sufferings and misfortunes of others. It could well be that the delay is due to the fact

that the matter is receiving very measured consideration. But I shall certainly make those representations for the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. James Hill: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is need for a debate on a matter that is worrying many hon. Members on both sides of the House — the infiltration of Militant Tendency into local government affairs? It is especially worrying in my constituency in Southampton where, at the last election, several Militant Tendency candidates took key positions on various committees—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question about the business for next week.

Mr. Hill: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is possible to have a debate on that very important matter next week?

Mr. Biffen: There might be some difficulty in establishing any ministerial responsibility for these affairs—but that responsibility exists must clearly be evident from the occurrences of the last few days. I would have thought that we were doing quite well from the public recognition of the dangers of militancy, without necessarily having to debate it here.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that we debated the industrial dispute in the prison service while negotiations were being conducted? Would it not now be sensible to have a further debate, so that the House can actually hear about the agreement reached between the Home Secretary and the Prison Officers Association and also about the Government's proposals to reduce the appalling levels of overcrowding that impose considerable burdens on both inmates and staff? Would it not at least be a courtesy to the House if the Home Secretary made an oral statement about the conclusion of the dispute?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman raises a problem relating not merely to prison staff but to conditions in prisons generally. I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the hon. Gentleman's request for a statement.

Mr. Timothy Wood: I noted my right hon. Friend's response about the Top Salaries Review Body. Will the response that will be given later this afternoon be set in the context of alterations in salaries for people lower down the particular trees and the importance of setting those salaries in the context of moderation of salaries and wages generally?

Mr. Biffen: Within a few moments, my hon. Friend will have before him the full text of a reply by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and also a letter from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Any attempt on my part to summarise them would be imprudent.

Mr. Simon Hughes: May I endorse the call for a debate early after the recess on the problems of southern Africa in particular, as opposed to foreign affairs in general?
If, on Tuesday, the motion on procedure in relation to the Channel Tunnel Bill results in a defeat for the move to short-circuit the normal procedures, may I take it that


we will not proceed hastily to a debate on Thursday but will be allowed a proper amount of time to proceed at the normal speed?
Will it be possible to have an early debate on the problems of the victims of the Abbeystead pumping house disaster two years ago tomorrow, who have still not been compensated although others who suffered bereavement subsequently have received compensation from the Government?

Mr. Biffen: If the Government are defeated on Tuesday, we will have to reconsider the wishes of the House.
I shall certainly study the other points that the hon. Gentleman raised. However, on his point about a debate on southern Africa, I recognise that that will be a matter of continuing interest and we will have to see how matters stand when the House returns after the recess.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: Although I accept that it will not be easy to tempt my right hon. Friend into another debate on the press, does he accept that the real discourtesy this morning was not the fact that the other House had a statement but that the press had advance notice of what was in that statement? Is it not rather rich that Ministers can come to the Dispatch Box, as they did only a few days ago about university grants, and say rather grandly, "The House will have the full figures in the Library tomorrow," when we all know full well that we will see them before they are placed in the Library? Would it not be a good idea to discuss this matter openly?

Mr. Biffen: There is some merit in that, but there is also a considerable amount of difficulty.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, well … [Laughter.]

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is the Leader of the House aware that there was a great deal of discontent last night because many hon. Members could not get the call to speak in two controversial debates — that of the shipbuilding industry and that of nuclear waste — because the debates were crammed into three hours? Why is it necessary to steamroller business through the House when there is a small amount of legislation before Committees which will he debated by the House? Is it because the Government intend to rise before the royal wedding, much earlier than usual, to get themselves on television? Will the Leader of the House arrange to deny that rumour by fixing up an important debate on shipbuilding and unemployment on the day of the royal wedding so we can see which is the most important business of the House?

Mr. Biffen: I understand that even now, and especially in Scotland, there is interest in what time we shall recess within the period from the end of June to mid-August. I can only say that there is one date which is fixed in my diary and that is the date of the Oswestry agricultural show. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are real difficulties in trying to manage business when there are so many demands and topics to be discussed. I would say, mildly, in self-defence, that there is a good reason for not having had a statement yesterday.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the procedures relating to Select Committees are in urgent need of fresh attention following this week's debate? Can we have an early debate on that?

Mr. Biffen: I think I would like time for the bruises to heal before we have a further debate.

Mr. Robert Parry: In the light of the recent written reply by the Home Secretary concerning the possible use of CS canisters and plastic bullets in England, will a statement be made in the near future and will there be a debate on that important matter, bearing in mind the fact that a number of innocent children and women in Northern Ireland have already been killed by plastic bullets?

Mr. Biffen: As the hon. Gentleman will know, that has been considered by the House from time to time. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to the interest that he now shows.

Mr. Roger Gale: Following the points made so correctly by the hon. Member for Thane', South (Mr. Aitken), I too have noticed that a debate on the Channel Tunnel Bill (Procedure) on 3 June is to be followed, with the presumed success of that debate, by a further debate on the Second Reading on 5 June. Far be it for me to suggest that the business of 3 June might carry over to 5 June, but will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will use his considerable powers to ensure that not only the voices of the big battalions but the voices of the ordinary people of north-east Kent are heard during the petitioning procedures?

Mr. Biffen: I take note of the point. Indeed, it will be part of the more general debates that will take place on the week we return. I quite understand the point my hon. Friend has made.

Mr. Allen McKay: The Leader of the House will recall that last week I asked him for a debate on British Coal. In view of the fact that 4,000 jobs will be lost in Yorkshire, 2,000 of which are in my constituency which already has a 25 per cent. male unemployment rate, is it not time that we had that debate? Is it not time that we looked at the direction of British Coal before it is too late, before it is completely decimated, and we run into the problems that existed in the 1960s?

Mr. Biffen: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. He made it all the more effectively by virtue of the temperate way that he presented it. I shall refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. The hon. Gentleman might like to bear it in mind that unemployment could be relevant to the debate which we shall have on 3 June.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: In view of the growing system, which is more time-honoured than honourable, whereby tame questions are put down to which explosive answers are given—one sees an example in today's reply to Written Question 234 on the Top Salaries Review Body—is it not time that the House debated whether such questions and statements are to be at the behest of Government or the main Opposition parties? If a statement is made on a contentious matter, it is not honourable and proper for democracy if such a statement is given in answer to some lame question.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I am not lame.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I was not suggesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East was lame. said that the question was lame. Could not we have debates


on these matters which affect many people in this country? Let us debate what we think should be statements and what should be questions so that we can deal with the problem of slipping in a question just before the bank holiday so as to ensure a little less trouble.

Mr. Biffen: For someone as generous as my hon. Friend, I thought that it was quite unnecessary for him to cast such aspersions——

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I did say that he was not lame.

Mr. Biffen: He just left the impression, which was not easy to break, that it was coded language. However, a long-standing tradition that has applied to Governments of both major parties is that these announcements are made in a form that has now become customary. Perhaps my hon. Friend should consider the answer before judging whether it is that explosive.

Mr. Greville Janner: I thank the Leader of the House for changing his mind and for personally asking the Ministry of Defence to investigate the circumstances in which British prisoners of war died after interrogation by Dr. Kurt Waldheim's German army group. Can we have an assurance that the inquiry will be carried out swiftly, that there will be a statement to the House thereafter, and that Waldheim's part in the interrogation by this army unit will not be ignored? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the Prime Minister's answer to me that a number of documents are missing from the Public Records Office that are believed to refer to Dr. Waldheim and this unit? Will he assure the House that he will look at these documents to ensure that there is no cover-up — as there has been by other Governments, including the Yugoslav Government—as I am sure that Her Majesty's Government would not wish to be accused in these circumstances?

Mr. Biffen: I do not accept many of the implications that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes, but I shall happily draw all his points to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. James Couchman: In view of the continuing state of lawlessness in Northern Ireland, and in particular the disgraceful antics of the Labour party aspirant to this place from Brent, East — Mr. Ken Livingstone—when he sought to persuade the Dutch not to return two convicted terrorists to Ireland, will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on security in the Province?

Mr. Biffen: The problems of the Province should properly be a constant charge upon consideration in this House, and I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to the suggestion that we might have an early debate.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Leader of the House recall the debate on the quorum for the Committee to consider the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill? The Chairman of Ways and Means gave an undertaking that he would seek to set up a Committee of Inquiry into the private Bill procedures. Has the right hon. Gentleman also seen the article in The Daily Telegraph which suggested that the Department of Transport was vetoing that inquiry? Surely he has a duty to uphold the

Chair at all times, and he ought to be facilitating the placing on the Order Paper as soon as possible of a motion relating to the inquiry, so that it can go ahead, and he should not allow the Department of Transport to prejudge the outcome.

Mr. Biffen: The plans for setting up a Committee are well advanced——

Mr. Bennett: When?

Mr. Biffen: I hope to be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman's anxieties before very long. I have not seen the article in The Daily Telegraph, but if its contents are as alleged, quite frankly it is moonshine.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): My right hon. Friend is well known for the interest that he takes in European political matters. He will have noticed the excellent election results in the Netherlands yesterday, when a determined and responsible Government were rewarded by recognition by their electorate and returned for yet another term of office. Will he give the House an early opportunity to debate the relevance of the Netherlands election results to politics in this country and allow us to draw the obvious conclusions?

Mr. Biffen: As ever, that is a most enticing proposition, but I must say in a somewhat sour fashion that a limited amount of Government time is available. However, my hon. Friend is one of the best free shooters on the Back Benches, and I am sure that he can find some way of raising the matter.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: As it is still the Government's intention to cut mortgage interest payment benefits for the poorest people in our society, is not it time that we had an early debate so that the Government can explain to my constituents who are one-parent families, disabled and unemployed, what role they see for them in their property owning democracy?

Mr. Biffen: There might be some merit in having a debate, if only to enable that rather strong presentation of the Government's position to be put into a much more accurate context. But just now I cannot see the likelihood of a debate being available because of the pressures of so much Government legislative business.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: When we have a debate on political indoctrination in our schools — examples of which were given so ably in another place earlier this week, led by Baroness Cox—can we also look at the difficulty of getting the police into our schools to talk about crime prevention and not breaking the law?
Can I also draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Question 43 on Thursday 8 May in which I asked the Prime Minister when she expected to receive the report of the Top Salaries Review Body? Written Question 234, which stands in my name today, was not planted, but is a follow-up to that original question.

Mr. Biffen: That is the most withering rejoinder that I have heard for some time. As to my hon. Friend's other point, the decisions taken by another place will have to come back to be considered here, and I very much hope that he will then have a chance to make the point that he has made with great persuasiveness.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On Friday 6 June, who among nature's communicators on the Government Front


Bench will be responding to the temperate motion on the conduct of the Prime Minister? Would not it be helpful to whoever does so to know whether the Prime Minister intends to ask for a retraction from The Observer newspaper and from Mr. Linklater and Mr. Leigh about their allegations on pages 142 and 143 of their book that the Prime Minister's stated knowledge about the selectively leaked letter from a Law Officer to a Minister of the Crown in fact existed a good deal earlier than she told the House?

Mr. Biffen: I would like the hon. Gentleman to go into the recess with a certain anxiety and anticipation. Therefore, I do not propose to tell him who will be handling that debate. But as is said in the best military terms, the response will be appropriate to the challenge. As for the hon. Gentleman's other points, I shall make sure that they are made available to the person who will be handling the debate.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: I realise that all of us, other than my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), will have to contain ourselves in patience and await the result of the Government's comments on the report of the Top Salaries Review Body. But I cannot believe that the combination of even the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer means that my right hon. Friend does not know what is in the answer to my hon. Friend's question. After all these years, will he admit to being a convert to incomes policy, even if it is only in the public sector, and could not outside industry follow the same lead?

Mr. Biffen: I have heard some mischievous questions in my time, hut that one clearly invites me to imply that a reasonable interpretation of the correspondence to which my hon. Friend referred is that it represents a statutory incomes policy. My hon. Friend must be responsible for his own interpretation, and should not try to plant it upon me.

Business (Deregulation)

The Paymaster General and Minister for Employment (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Government action to relieve the burden of unnecessary regulation. We are publishing today a White Paper entitled "Building Businesses — Not Barriers". It contains a balanced series of new proposals for reducing the administrative and legislative burdens on business as well as a report on the progress made in furthering the proposals made in the last White Paper on this subject, "Lifting the Burden".
The White Paper reflects our firm belief that only by removing barriers to business will enterprise flourish and the essential creation of wealth and jobs follow. It presents a balanced programme that recognises that Government have a role in providing legal protection for workers, consumers and the general public, as well as protecting the environment and our quality of life. However, it also recognises that unnecessary regulations act as an inhibition to business growth and job creation.
In the White Paper, the Government have maintained these protections while still taking a series of significant steps forward in giving business the freedom to grow.
There are nearly 80 new proposals in "Building Businesses — Not Barriers". First, the work of the enterprise and deregulation task force, liaising with deregulation teams in Departments, will ensure that there is a proper analysis of the effects of proposed new rules and regulations on businesses.
We shall modernise the use classes order to allow a somewhat wider range of changes in the use of buildings or land to take place without planning permission. We shall permit businesses with planning permission for two or more alternative uses to change between these without the need for further planning applications. I stress that we do not propose to change the law on working from home.
We shall be setting up a major review of value added tax and small businesses, considering such issues as accounting for VAT on a cash basis rather than using invoices, and an instalment system for VAT payments.
We are introducing a more personal approach by civil servants in their dealings with business, so that responsibility will be linked to individual, named officials. We shall be reducing the duplication of visits by Government officials. PAYE and national insurance inspectors are now co-ordinating their visits to companies and we are introducing a pilot scheme to co-ordinate visits by Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise officials.
These are just a small sample of the efforts being made throughout every Government Department and agency to cut red tape and improve communications. Our proposals are carefully measured. None cross the fine dividing line between liberty and licence.
As well as concentrating on reducing domestic burdens, the White Paper also reports on progress towards cutting the bureaucracy imposed by EEC regulations and directives. Following an initiative made by the Prime Minister, a task force has been established within the European Commission to scrutinise all future proposals that might affect business, so that the costs of compliance can be minimised.
At the same time as publishing "Building Businesses — Not Barriers" the Department of Employment has launched a booklet "Cutting Red Tape". It summarises the contents of the White Paper in a popular and easy-to-digest way.
There can be few more urgent tasks than to create the climate for growth of employment. The more people concentrate on running their businesses, free of unnecessary barriers, the better for jobs, and more jobs is our aim—one, I am sure, shared by both sides of the House. This White Paper will help jobs without losing any necessary protections for the public. I commend it to the House.

Mr. John Prescott: The Paymaster General's statement has a certain familiarity about it, not because it was made earlier in the other place, but because it very much follows the recommendations made in the previous White Paper on this subject, on which a statement was made on 16 July 1985. Much of the rhetoric in the Paymaster General's statement masked a further attack on the protection of employees, the reduction of controls on the employer and the continued processes heralded in the last statement, made on 16 July, on "Lifting the Burden". The motive of that White Paper, as the Paymaster General will no doubt accept, was to sacrifice the principles governing the green belt, health and safety, and industrial rights.
Is the Paymaster General aware that the phrases contained in his statement were exactly the same as those made on 16 July 1885 by the right hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore)? Does the Paymaster General realise that the words and phrases, lifted from column 171 of Hansard, include:
enterprise to flourish … essential for the creation of jobs. … a central task force is being set up … Essential protection for workers, consumers and the general public … protect our quality of life … the balance between liberty and licence".—[Official Report, 16 July 1985; Vol. 83, c. 171.]
Was the same word processor used for the two statements? Remarkably, I found that on 16 July 1985, there were 80 proposals in the White Paper, as there are 80 proposals in this White Paper.
Will the Paymaster General recognise that many of the proposals in this White Paper are embodied in the first White Paper? A great deal of rhetoric has been employed in this statement about creating enterprise and jobs. How many jobs have been created since the last exercise in cutting red tape? It was suggested that 8,000 jobs would be created, but in reality, 4,000 jobs a week have been lost since that statement.
Is the Paymaster General aware that the survey conducted by his Department justifying measures in the White Paper clearly showed that the burden of VAT was the main consideration for small companies, but again, the White Paper offers only a promise of further reviews, the payment of VAT on HP terms and that civil servants will visit less often and be nicer? Does he accept that the real reason for this White Paper is yet another attack on the limited employment rights of workers, rights that are identified in the White Paper, and which are shown in the survey not to be a difficult problem for small businesses?
Can the Paymaster General honestly justify his belief that the measures in the White Paper will provide jobs? For example, what help will be provided by imposing a deposit

of £25 on workers who go to an industrial tribunal, removing the rights of pregnant women to return to their companies, reducing the time off for trade union members to conduct trade union activities at the place of work, or removing unfair dismissal and redundancy rights for hundreds of thousands of workers in many companies?
Will the Paymaster General accept that the real purpose of this White Paper, masked in rhetoric to justify deregulation, is to cut employment rights and increase unemployment? As the House was reminded by the statements in the press today and yesterday, a further 20,000 bus workers are to go on the dole as a result of deregulation of the bus industry.

Mr. Clarke: I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) began by attacking these proposals for lifting various unnecessary administrative burdens on business as somehow an attack on workers' rights or a reduction of essential public control. The hon. Gentleman was a supporter of the Government who left office in 1979, leaving industry with its profits, its prices and its wage rates controlled, and under a huge burden of bureaucracy. That greatly weakened our industrial base as we went into the worst of industrial recessions. The White Paper's proposals are a series of modest steps that will get rid of unnecessary bureaucracy. The American experience, contrasted with the European experience, shows that that can only help in generating new jobs by leaving businesses more free to concentrate on the most essential tasks.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned various public policies that he said were threatened. The White Paper says that there is to be no change in policy on the green belt and the proposals made for town and country planning are modest and sensible, and allow greater flexibility for high tech companies in particular. It is made plain in the White Paper that there is no attack on the concept of health and safety at work and no intention to lower standards.
The hon. Gentleman rather dismisses the review of VAT, but it is to be a wide-ranging one, and I touched in my statement on some of the important matters that it will cover. It will also cover the operation of the new penalty system that is being introduced, after consultation, into the VAT system.
As to employment protection, the hon. Gentleman cites various measures that he says are an attack on working people. I do not think that it is easy to get indignant about the proposal that the legal entitlement for time off for trade unionists should be confined to those trade union matters that are relevant to the company where the official works.
The other changes will enable the labour market to be more flexible and they will make it easier for employers to offer different types of employment. They will also encourage the growth of part-time and short-time working and the other forms of employment that are growing, both in this economy and in every other modern economy.
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman dislikes the fact that in this statement the same favourite phrases appear as appeared in the statement that was made by my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for Transport. However, it was made in 1985, not in 1885 when Lord Salisbury was Prime Minister. I am sure that my right hon. and noble Friend is glad to know that he is carrying on the same Tory tradition as existed then. Of course we are pursuing the same theme. That is because we are pursuing the same policies. We are deregulating in order to enable


business men to concentrate on the essential task of building up their businesses. The fact that there were 80 proposals then and that there are a further 80 proposals now shows that we are maintaining a good rate of progress. They are the result of looking at the activities of all branches of government.

Mr. Prescott: But how many jobs have been created?

Mr. Clarke: For the first time in this country we are questioning the growth of administration and bureaucracy since the second world war. We are seeking to reduce it in the interests of enabling businesses to be more free to create new jobs.

Mr. David Howell: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that this White Paper, like the last one, is thoroughly constructive and is to be welcomed, and that it is entirely in line with the new pattern of work and the new employment landscape that the Opposition will not begin to understand and, when they do understand it, quite wrongly oppose? I accept that in both "Lifting the Burden" and this new White Paper questions are tackled about the position of the self-employed, but the widespread impression still exists that the Inland Revenue is hostile to the self-employed and to the growing army of people who wish to organise their affairs in that way. Will he look particularly at that matter and consider how it can be changed?
Does my right hon. and learned Friend also accept that the time has come when the Government might recommend to Members of this honourable House that they, too, might consider returning to the self-employed status that they once held in order that they may understand the problems that face the self-employed in this country?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The number of self-employed people is growing strongly. About 12 per cent. of those who are working in this country are now self-employed. That number is likely to increase, and it should increase if we follow the kind of developments that have taken place in successful modern economies elsewhere. We have already taken steps to help the self-employed. Probably the most significant step was the reduction in their national insurance contributions. The White Paper proposes that the issue of 714 certificates to those who legitimately require them to work in a self-employed capacity in the building industry should be speeded up. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will seek to ensure that no hostility to legitimate self-employment prevails inside the Inland Revenue. I agree entirely with the general drift of my right hon. Friend's questions.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Does the Paymaster General not recognise that the more chatter we hear from him about deregulation the more unemployment increases every month? Furthermore, are not the rights of workers being reduced? They can appear before an industrial tribunal where their case is upheld, but, in the case of the miners who were dismissed, the National Coal Board still refused to reinstate them.
The main thing that is being deregulated is accountability to this House. The Paymaster General must realise that all this was dealt with elsewhere this morning. The noble Lord, Lord Young, dealt with all of this on radio. All the House of Commons is getting is the fag-end. The Paymaster General comes to the House as a messenger boy. Is that not an insult to the House of Commons?

Mr. Clarke: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, it is essential that we should have a good and effective system of employment protection law, but that does not mean that we should retain obsolete or over-complex provisions which deter employers from offering new employment to those whom they might otherwise engage. That is the general theme that runs through this package.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, he knows that all Governments have Ministers in both Houses of Parliament. My right hon. and noble Friend and I have worked together on this package. We worked together also on the drafting of this statement. We have followed the ordinary practice of making the statement together on the same day in both Houses. It was to the surprise of my right hon. and noble Friend and me when we noticed that, because of our anxiety to make the statement before the recess, we were due to deliver it on a day when the rules of another place required my right hon. and noble Friend to make his statement in the morning but the rules of this place did not enable me to make it before 4 o'clock. We try to explain Government policy to both Houses in accordance with the positions that we hold, but I am afraid that the practice of both Houses does not enable my right hon. and noble Friend and me to guarantee that we can synchronise our watches and rise in both Chambers at the same time. As their Lordships are sitting earlier than this House today, their Lordships have the advantage over us.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that it is clear that he and his right hon. and noble Friend have made real progress in slaying the dangerous dragon of red tape? Therefore it would be more sensible if, rather than criticising, the Opposition were to recognise that the reason this country has created jobs at a slower rate than in the United States is that we have been over-regulated. This deregulation programme is probably the single most constructive measure we can take to create new jobs at a faster rate.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend look at the deregulation units in the Departments and examine whether they could be a little more effective and act more quickly? Perhaps a junior Minister in my right hon. and learned Friend's Department could be made responsible for deregulation. The recent problem that we experienced when responsibility for family credits was laid upon businesses would not then arise. We might also avoid the somewhat farcial situation that has arisen over the working of the Data Protection Act 1984. The policy is working, but we should like it to work a little faster.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who, throughout his time as a Member of Parliament, has been urging this kind of policy on successive Governments. am glad to hear that he is pleased that it is now being implemented in successive White Papers. We intend to keep up the effort. The White Paper explains the new deregulation arrangements that have been established throughout Whitehall. We have reached this stage following the co-ordination that was carried out by my right hon. and noble Friend and me of the activities of various Departments. Junior Ministers in those Departments have been involved in the exercise. Indeed, they are responsible for the detailed proposals that are contained in the White Paper and for their execution. We


have ensured that deregulation in high on the agenda in each Department in Whitehall. There are effective deregulation units in each Department.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: The two alliance parties welcome, so far as it goes, the Government's attempt to compensate for the hugely increased burdens on business because of high real interest rates and the extravagant unit labour costs that are due to the absence of an incomes policy. I commiserate with the Paymaster General. The statement, having been deferred from yesterday until today, when it could have been made simultaneously in both Houses yesterday, means that his right hon. and noble Friend asserted his complete leadership of the Department by delivering it four hours before the Paymaster General rose in this House.
Will the Paymaster General give an assurance that the scheme to co-ordinate visits from the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise Departments will not decrease the honourable rule that no single Department should divulge to another Department answers that it has received from a citizen in respect of its departmental requirements?
As for the proposal that responsibility will be linked to individually named officials, before the Paymaster General proceeds down this very dangerous avenue in which his Government have already established a most unhappy precedent, will he and his right hon. and noble Friend read carefully the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, which was published today, on relations between civil servants and Ministers? It lays down in firm, all-party terms the need for no repetition of the circumstances in which a young civil servant at the outset of her career was named in respect of a piece of behaviour for which she was in no way responsible.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman began by expressing support, for which I am grateful, although he wrapped it up rather heavily thereafter. Of course my right hon. and noble Friend is the head of Department and Secretary of State for the Department. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, if he thinks that this was the result of any planning, it was at a remarkably late stage that my right hon. and noble Friend and I realised that the rules of our respective Houses would mean that the other place would act first in its discussion of this proposal.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no change in the existing rules on the confidentiality of information about individuals between Departments as a result of the White Paper. The proposal about named officials will not, of course, mean that there is any transfer of ultimate responsibilities. It is Ministers who will remain accountable to this House for the way in which policy is drawn up and executed. The intention is that we get away from the situation where a business man or an individual citizen can sometimes feel that he is dealing with a literally faceless bureaucracy and have no idea who is handling his problem in a particular Department. The result should be an improvement in the relationship between Departments and citizens to the advantage, I should have thought, of both officials and citizens.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Does the White Paper herald the bringing under control of the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise by the Minister's own Secretary of State, so that they do not in future issue

practice directions or regulations that undercut what his Department is doing? This is very important. For instance, there is the change in the rule that, after a VAT inspector has certified accounts as being in accordance with his Department's requirements, a subsequent inspector can cancel that and say, "No, I don't agree with the previous inspector." It is very important that a Minister in his own Department should see in advance and approve all changes in the Inland Revenue practice directions and regulations that do not pass through this House, and similarly in the case of Customs and Excise. Has this now been arranged as a working process so that the Treasury and its subsidiaries do not undercut the valuable work done by his Department?

Mr. Clarke: It is my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the team of Treasury Ministers who are accountable for the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, and it is to them that the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise report. I am glad to say, however, that liaison between my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his team of Ministers and the team of Ministers in my Department is very good. In regard to our responsibilities for small business in particular, we ensure that, with our representations, the representations of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, who takes a close interest in these matters, are regularly put into the Treasury and taken into account when the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise are considering the way in which they behave.

Mr. James Lamond: Is the Minister aware that what he referred to as bureaucratic regulations, particularly in regard to planning, have over a number of years often avoided rather unhappy situations? If he is trying to tell us today that change of use regulations, for example, have to be considerably modified or swept away, will he not remind himself of the cases that he, like all hon. Members, must have had, of the entrepreneur who has come along, spotted a redundant chapel and thought it would make a nice place for breaking up motor cars or boiling sheeps' heads? The people who live in the area, far from regarding change of use regulations as bureaucratic, see them as an important defence for them and their neighbours. Surely we must take that into consideration.

Mr. Clarke: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need an effective system of town and country planning control. I also agree that the present system has piled up over the years, often as the result of individual problems. I believe that it is important that we step back occasionally and make sure that the system as a whole corresponds to public needs but does not put unnecessary obstacles in the way of business expansion. The next stage, for instance, in the use classes order revision is to go out to consultation, again with a modified version of the proposals first put forward by the Property Advisory Group. I assure the hon. Gentleman that changes will be made only when we are satisfied that this can be done without damaging the legitimate interests of people living in residential areas who obviously do not want noxious businesses near where they live.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: While I welcome the White Paper as a positive step forward and


applaud the Minister on his presentation, which compares very favourably with that of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who shows yet again that he is out of date and out of touch, will my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is not enough for the White Paper to talk in terms of officials giving their addresses and telephone numbers? What is needed is a complete change of attitude, so that all officials become more pro-business and more pro-entrepreneur.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree with his point. I am sure that most officials would welcome pressure to adopt such an approach. A great deal of effort is being put into training officials in Departments such as Customs and Excise to make sure that they improve their relationships with the general public and understand the needs of small business when they are carrying out their essential tasks.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I ask a question that is not necessarily hostile? Has the question of responsibility of named civil servants been discussed with the Civil Service trade unions? Regarding his answer to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), is the Minister entirely happy that ultimate responsibility will still remain with Ministers because, once individuals are named, the fact is that, like it or not, responsibility sticks to them? In the circumstances, and in the light of the agony of the Ponting trial, is there not yet again an argument, if the Government are going to do this, for setting up some body to which a civil servant who is in difficulty can turn? As long as ultimately one has the Cabinet Secretary as head of the Civil Service, in real terms it is very difficult for a civil servant to appeal.

Mr. Clarke: When the hon. Gentleman asks questions that are necessarily hostile, he sometimes asks easier questions than the ones which are not necessarily hostile.
I do not believe that any formal consultation has been carried on on this proposal. We will obviously be interested in any views that the Civil Service unions have. I would expect that officials in the relevant parts of the Administration will probably welcome the changes that we are proposing. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no weakening of the constitutional position, whereby the responsibility rests with the Minister answerable to this House. Policy responsibilities that are properly those of the Government and of Ministers will not be wished on to officials.
When the hon. Gentleman goes into the last matter, of course, he goes far outside my field and far outside the White Paper. I do not believe that the White Paper will present any difficulties between officials and Ministers of the kind that he describes.

Mr. Tim Smith: As small businesses regard the recording and collection of VAT as the major burden that they have to bear, does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the proposal for a major review of VAT will be widely welcomed by small businesses? Can he make sure that it will include the proposition made by the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses for the elimination of VAT between registered traders on credit transactions? If accepted, that could reduce the burden of those traders very substantially.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I assure him that it will be a wide-ranging review and can certainly

look at propositions put forward by the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses, which is actively interested in this matter. It will probably not be completed before 1987, but we are already taking some steps, such as our efforts to raise the thresholds. We have already had some success, although we still have to lobby further in the European Community. In addition, we have introduced some relief on VAT payments for bad debts. This, too, has been of benefit to some small businesses.

Mr. Ken Eastham: Is it not a fact that, when the original consultation document' Lifting the Burden" was issued, it was highly speculative as to the people being consulted and, in the event, workers' groups and the trade unions were never consulted? Many people look on this as a possible cowboys' charter. We have seen reductions in the standard of planning and building reguslations and fire precautions. With regard to the emphasis on small companies, I remind the Minister that some of the greatest disasters have occurred in small firms. In 1981 at a small chemical firm in Stalybridge just outside Manchester, at which only 15 people worked, there was a fatality and half the town had to be evacuated. Are these the kind of standards that the Minister is encouraging?

Mr. Clarke: There is obviously an essential level of public safety and safety for people at work that nobody wishes to lower. The imposition of unnecessary or bureaucratic standards in industry is undoubtedly very inhibiting to business growth. The purpose of this exercise is to try to sort out the one without damaging the other—thatis, to sort out those parts of bureaucracy that can be relaxed without damaging essential public safeguards. I hope that more people in the trade union movement will come to realise that a constant demand for ever more regulations to increase, as they see it, the rights of those in work can sometimes lead to damage being done to the interests of those not in work if the result is to discourage business or employers from taking on new employees.

Mr. John Butterfill: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept, in relation to the use classes order that many of the concerns arise not because of changes within, say, parts 3 to 10 on different types of shop or extensions to shops, but because of activities in residential areas that may be offensive to the residents? Will he bear that seriously in mind when considering the matter? Will he also bear in mind that some of the changes proposed within the residential connotation, such as the change of use from hotel or guest house to a rest home, will cause considerable difficulty in many resort towns in my constituency in particular?
May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Fiend on the proposals for redundant agricultural buildings? It is absurd that agricultural buildings of considerable architectural merit have in the past been allowed to fall into disrepair and decay simply because no alternative use could be found for them. Will he please encourage the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to reconsider its policy of insisting that agricultural land must remain agricultural land for ever when at times it could he better used for leisure or recreational purposes without damage to the countryside or the landscape?
On the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), may I urge my right hon. and


learned Friend to consider the position of the self-employed whose businesses may fail and who may be unable to enjoy the benefits that would otherwise accrue to those unemployed?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. On the town and country planning points, it will be easier to make progress with changes that give greater flexibility in the use of business premises. I think that those can go ahead rapidly. It is necessary to take more care over changes that might affect residential areas. I am sure that that will be the principal aim of the further process of consultation that is envisaged before we come to conclusions on the use classes orders.
I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about the use of former agricultural buildings. That would be a great advantage to rural areas. In continuing conversations with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend said about the present arrangement for protecting agricultural land.
As for the self-employed, we give a great deal of support through the enterprise allowance scheme and through the small business service to those unemployed who wish to become self-employed. I agree that it is important to bring home to the self-employed the possible consequences of moving into self-employment, particularly if the business fails. Obviously all our efforts are designed to reduce the risk of business failure.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is not much of the document based on the mistaken premise that deregulation in the United States of America put several million people back to work during 1983, 1984 and 1985? Is not the real truth of the American success that its economy was reflated due to a very high budget deficit and PSBR, that they spent money to put people back to work and that they did not have to deregulate?

Mr. Clarke: I am not one of those who believe that any one cause can be identified for favourable or unfavourable movements in employment. This is not the occasion to debate the performance of the American economy over the last few years. Certainly there was an unintended increase in the American deficit, which had some effect on the economy. It involved a deficit that could not possibly be sustained by an economy of our size. An important element in the American experience has been the much more dynamic nature of their economy, the greater spirit of entrepreneurship which undoubtedly exists in America, and the fact that their experience of deregulation has enabled their most enterprising business men to make more rapid progress. In Massachusetts, where unemployment has collapsed from 11 per cent. or 12 per cent. five years ago to under 5 per cent. one of the elements was undoubtedly the fact that that is a much less regulated economy than the equivalent here or in western Europe.

Mr. Richard Holt: My right hon. and learned Friend has done a wonderful job in bringing this forward. One part that I heard with delight was the reference to the £25 deposit. I hope that he does not think that he can fob me and the rest of the business world off with that as the only thing that will help with industrial tribunals. We have twice been promised a thorough review of the activities and workings of industrial tribunals,

particularly their legislation. The lawyers here may not agree, but I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will have the courage to bring forward a review of legalisation.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend has strong and clear views about the working of the industrial tribunal system, some of which I had the pleasure of listening to in the proceedings on the Wages Bill.
I am glad that we have given limited satisfaction to my hon. Friend by proposing for discussion a £25 fee. It has always been the aim of successive Governments to avoid unnecessary legalisms in the industrial tribunal system. We continue to have that aim. There are limits to how far one can go when a system which has been set up by statute decides on set awards of compensation. Anything we can do to avoid an increase in unnecessary legalism we shall continue to do.

Mr. Peter Pike: Can the Paymaster General state clearly how many people the proposals will put back to work and how far his Department is prepared to go in eroding the conditions of workers and the protection afforded to employees in order to solve the problems created by his Government?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is impossible to put exact figures on the extent to which particular actions of Government will help to create more jobs, or the extent to which they will damage job creation. I believe that the White Paper will make it easier for business to create jobs in the economy. To return to a more rigid system of controls and regulation favoured by the Labour party would have the perverse, though unintended, effect of actually reducing the prospects of more employment.

Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that in many respects the proposals follow the Small Business Bill introduced last Session? Will he accept further that there are in the proposals many interesting factors that have yet to be improved? It would be better in certain respects if we went for a package of deregulation and at the same time for a package which ensured that the legislation itself was reduced before coming into effect; in other words, we should have fewer regulations so that we do not have to deregulate afterwards.

Mr. Clarke: I happily acknowledge our indebtedness to my hon. Friend and others for the proposals which have arisen from the Small Business Bill and for their continued interest in the subject. It is a continuing process. Some of the proposals which I wish to implement will require legislation. The unit will continue to identify other areas where we can deregulate. The most important part of the proposals is that we will have a unit in the Department expressly charged with keeping an eye on what is emerging from the whole of Whitehall. In future no Department of Government can introduce fresh regulations without first considering their compliance cost for small business. It is the inexorable growth of more and more bureaucracy that the Government are trying to avoid.

Mr. James Couchman: Speaking for small business, may I point out to the Minister that the prospect of a co-ordinated visit by Her Majesty's inspector of taxes, the DHSS lady in regard to the national insurance contribution, and the water guard wishing to examine my


VAT returns is daunting and is likely to precipitate my throwing in the towel, not to mention possibly causing an untimely by-election in Gillingham.
To be more serious, does my hon. and learned Friend accept that one of the biggest barriers to growth in the hotel, restaurant, catering and licensed trades is the outdated licensing law? Does he agree that paragraph 8.54 on liquor licensing hours is disappointing? Will he speak to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about getting earlier action than is presently promised?

Mr. Clarke: I know that no business man welcomes a visit of any kind from officials in those departments, not least because it consumes much time. One co-ordinated visit should be better than visits on successive days, which might occur. On the licensing laws, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear earlier this week that the Government accept in principle the case for reform of the licensing laws. I have always believed that our licensing laws are archaic and much in need of reform. The Government will try to find out what consensus emerges for improvement and how soon it will be possible to bring proposals before the House.

Mr. Roger Gale: Those of us who are interested in the development of the tourist and leisure industries will be especially grateful for the support that my right hon. and learned Friend, his noble Friend and the deregulation unit have given to those industries. Needless to say, we hope very much, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) has said, that that support will be carried through into action and that there will be a change in the licensing laws.
I draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill). Chapter 5.7 of the report deals with the use classes order. It states:
The Department of the Environment will be publishing early next month a consultation document which sets out the Government's proposals in detail.
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that those of us involved with the tourist industry will be very concerned if consent is given for the conversion of small hotels and guest houses either to rest homes or to a return to the DHSS use that we saw two summers ago?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his first point. It is interesting that hon. Members who take most interest in the development of the fast-growing sectors of the economy such as tourism and leisure have welcomed this document and the initiative. I believe that many new jobs will be created through the Government's approach to tourism and leisure. I understand what my hon. Friend says about the use classes order. There will be consultation over that matter and I am sure that my hon. Friend's point will be made very strongly to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment before any changes are made.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): My right hon. and learned Friend will know by now that there is universal welcome from the Conservative Benches for the initiative that he is taking. However, will he tell the House whether he is satisfied about the progress that has been made in connection with the "Lifting the Burden" initiative adopted by' his Department last year'? Will he give the details of the progress that has been made? Does he believe that the same progress will be made, with the same speed, with the proposals that he has brought to the House today?

Mr. Clarke: Annex 1, appendix A, of the White Paper and, indeed, annex 1 generally, deals with a summary of the action on the proposals set out in "Lifting the Burden". I admit that one or two of the proposals have bitten the dust since "Lifting the Burden" was published. However, we have made progress with most of the proposals. The changes that have been made reflect the care that must be taken in sensitive areas such as health and safety, which hon. Members have mentioned today. This is a continuing process and our main anxiety is, as my hon. Friend would wish, that we should not lose the momentum behind the exercise.

Mr. James Hill: I see That planning appeals are to be speeded up. That will he appreciated. The document also states that planning controls will be reduced in some minor way. The whole idea of deregulation is to create job opportunities. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of a campaign that I have been fighting on behalf of the six freeports in the United Kingdom? We are desperately seeking deregulation in such ares as Customs and Excise taxes and imposts, and on VAT between customers within the freeports. The lack of deregulation in the freeports is causing difficulties and is not creating job vacancies. Is there anything in the White Paper which will give me hope when I speak to the manager of the Southampton freeport?

Mr. Clarke: In answer to my hon. Friend's point about planning appeals by inspectors, we have now managed to release the results of the efficiency scrutiny report that we carried out, and targets have been set to reduce the handling time of appeals. That is set out in paragraph 5.17 of the White Paper, and I am glad to see that my hon. Friend is making use of the clear, shorter document, and that that has enabled him to ask this question.
Freeports will be involved in the review of VAT. My hon. Friend will be reassured to know that the full White Paper expressly mentions that as a matter for investigation. The impact of VAT rules and the application of VAT on the development of freeports will be examined.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's continued commitment to helping small businesses. I believe that "Building Businesses—Not Barriers" is a great success story that should be promoted throughout the country. Will my right hon. and learned Friend develop from annex 4 the question of wider competition in our postal services? Competition is healthy and small businesses can benefit from the alternatives that other fast letter carrier services can offer. In connection with the Registered Homes Act 1984 and the Nursing Homes and Mental Nursing Homes Regulations 1984, my right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of my anxiety that too many of these homes are springing up —rather like mushrooms — without proper controls. While I want controls to be reduced, will he reassure the House that no advantage will be taken of our old people when they need to be looked after?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend will have noticed, as I have, that parts of the trade union and labour movements are still keener on the barriers than on the businesses when it comes to a choice between the two. I also approve of competition in the interests of the consumer, and I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has responsibility for the postal services.
The Government legislated less than two years ago to improve the controls over new nursing homes, to ensure that the interests of the best and legitimate nursing homes were not damaged by the incursion into that area of homes which dropped below essential nursing and other standards. That shows that, when it is necessary to protect the public, the Government improve controls, so long as we are satisfied that they serve a serious purpose, and best protect elderly and sick people against exploitation in sub standard homes.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's comments about licensing. Is he aware that there is a special problem about the 200 commercial vineyards? These need a special vineyard licence to allow them to offer tourists tastes of their wares throughout the day. At present, they must have an off licence and an on licence. If a visitor arrives during the off licence period, he cannot taste wine as he can anywhere else in Europe. Will my right hon. and learned Friend make a simple alteration to this excellent document to allow tourists to taste our splendid English wine whenever they choose to drop in at a vineyard?

Mr. Clarke: At present we are considering no fewer than 65 licensing systems, as is explained briefly in the Bill. We are certain to act promptly on the licensing requirement for public billiard halls. That dates back to social conditions, which have no relevance today. My hon. Friend has raised a pertinent point and he appears to have identified yet another of the idiocies of our liquor licensing system. We all hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will soon be able to crystalise his ideas over the licensing laws. We shall then have to see when we can get the legislative time to bring reforms forward.

Mr. John Evans: Is the Paymaster General aware that, when the Minister of State for the Armed Forces rises to make a statement to the House in a few minutes' time, the other place will interrupt its business so that a simultaneous statement can be made? is that not an excellent example, not only of the contempt that the Secretary of State for Employment has for this House, but of the contempt he has for the Paymaster General?
Is the Paymaster General also aware that his proposition that individuals should be charged £25 deposit for appealing to an industrial tribunal is yet another example of the way that the Government have steadily removed and eroded the rights of the ordinary citizen? The former Financial Secretary to the Treasury referred to about 80 new proposals when he presented the "Lifting the Burden" White Paper last year.
This year the Paymaster General mentioned nearly 80 new proposals. Can he clarify whether those 80 proposals

are different proposals? If so, how many of last year's 80 proposals were carried into effect? Does he also recall that last year it was said that cutting red tape and ending form-filling would create some 8,000 jobs? Will he tell the House how many jobs were really created? Does he appreciate that the Opposition would welcome proposals from the Paymaster General or his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Employment which would begin to reduce the appalling dole queues rather than glossy documents, empty words and rhetoric?

Mr. Clarke: Like me, the hon. Gentleman has served time in the Whips Office. He also probably knows more about the procedures of this House than about the procedures in another place. The statement on "Building Businesses — Not Barriers" was made by Cabinet Ministers in each House. The Lords took the statement, made by the Secretary of State for Employment, at the time that they always take statements, after questions when sitting in the morning. The statement on defence matters will be made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces who is sitting beside me. That statement will be repeated in the other place by a Minister who is not a Minister in that Department. The rules of the other place require the statement to be repeated. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has agreed that we shall look at all that, but the fact is that parliamentary procedure is responsible for where we are and it does not really feed the hon. Gentleman's main point.
On the £25 fee, the problem, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept, is that some cases which are going before industrial tribunals really should not be brought. At the moment, an individual can go to an industrial tribunal at no cost to himself and at the very least he will impose considerable costs on his employer simply by raising the complaint, and cause considerable public expenditure while ACAS and the tribunal system deal with it.
We have deliberately avoided anything that would cut people off from access to justice or be punitive in that way. The £25 fee will be returnable in most cases, but at least it might cause people to reflect before they casually make a complaint to an industrial tribunal, and thus leave tribunals freer to get on with the important cases that they have before them.
The part of the White Paper that relates to the hon. Gentleman's last point is only one of many policies in our Department. We are engaging in other inititatives which he and I will have many other opportunities to discuss. However, the fact is that since the spring of 1983 we have seen the creation of 985,000 — nearly 1 million — additional new jobs in the British economy. That has arisen because the British economy is expanding and because it is being made freer and more flexible in the operation of its labour market. That process must continue, and the White Paper is a small but important part of that.

Top Salaries Review Body

Sir Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We now have the copies of the pay review bodies' reports and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's letter. I notice that a large number of public servants will get quite good rises, especially those in the medical field, as from 1 July, which happens to be my birthday. It looks as though my hon. Friends and myself will be the only people to be left out. Will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor put that right by sending another letter to say that, in view of the bounty that is coming on my birthday, there can be something for me and my hon. Friends?

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has a very happy birthday on 1 July.

Cyprus Secrets Trial (Calcutt Report)

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): Following the acquittal last year of eight service men from 9 Signal Regiment in Cyprus who had been charged under the Official Secrets Acts, I announced in the House on 29 October that there was to be an independent inquiry into the way in which the service police carried out their investigations of the eight men originally accused. Mr. David Calcutt QC agreed to conduct this inquiry. The House was also told that it was the intention that, subject to the usual security considerations, Mr. Calcutt's report on his inquiry would be published. The report has been published today. Cmnd. 9781.
Mr. Calcutt has concluded that the service police investigations, which he acknowledged involved special difficulties due to their sensitivity and complexity, were undertaken without any animosity or towards the service men concerned, and that none of the service men were subjected to any violence or threats of violence, or any form of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.
Mr. Calcutt has, however, concluded that the custody of the eight service men was, for part of the time, unlawful and that, even after the service men had been lawfully arrested on holding charges, their continued custody was at least improper. The interviews by the service police with each of the eight service men mostly took place during these periods of unlawful and improper custody.
In the light of Mr. Calcutt's conclusions as to the lawfulness of the custody of the service men, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has concluded that in the case of seven of them he is prepared to make an ex gratia payment. The seven service men concerned are Senior Aircraftmen Kriehn, Lightowler, Owen and Payne, Lance-Corporal Glass and Signalmen Hardman and Tuffy. On their application, my right hon. Friend will ask Mr. Michael Ogden QC, who acts as an independent assessor for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, to make an independent assessment of the amount of the award in each case.
As regards the eighth service man, Senior Aircraftman Jones, Mr. Calcutt considered, on his construction of Air Force rules of procedure, that his custody was unlawful. Although the facts adduced in evidence before both Mr. Calcutt and the trial judge were essentially the same, the submissions addressed to them by counsel were very different. Indeed, before the trial judge, Senior Aircraftman Jones's counsel did not contend that the custody was unlawful. When the trial judge considered the same provisions of the Air Force rules of procedure, he accepted that Jones's custody was lawful. In these circumstances, since the trial judge found that Senior Aircraftman Jones's detention was lawful, it would be inappropriate to offer an ex gratia payment in his case. It is of course always open to him to pursue his remedies in the courts, should he be so advised.
Mr. Calcutt has also concluded that, as the number of days spent in custody increased, so the pressure which was exerted on each of the service men gradually built up and crossed over from what was at first proper to what he could only regard as becoming improper, and that the pressures which were ultimately exerted on each of the service men were such that these were likely to render unreliable


answers given or statements made by them. However, Mr. Calcutt also points out that the investigations carried out by the service police in Cyprus in February and March 1984 were difficult, sensitive and complex, and they would have created profound problems for anyone who was given the task of carrying them out. Mr. Calcutt concludes that, although he has pointed to some breaches of lawful and proper procedures, it would be unfair to be over-critical either of the investigating service police or of those who were advising them.
The Government fully recognise the difficult position in which the service investigators in the case were placed and that they were motivated solely by what they perceived to be their clear duty. The Government are also grateful to the service investigators for their full participation in Mr. Calcutt's inquiry, which was entirely of their own volition. I should also like to take this opportunity to make it quite clear that we continue to have full confidence in the integrity and professionalism of the royal military police and the RAF police who do difficult, complex and very important security work in many key defence areas.
Mr. Calcutt has recommended seven matters for further consideration. These are: the potential conflict between learning the nature, extent and full circumstances of any breach of security and bringing the offender to justice; the need to give at an early stage in an investigation clear guidance on the relative priority to be given to the counter-intelligence aspect and the criminal aspect of a security case; whether, in certain circumstances, the 48-hour maximum period allowed under current service procedures for suspects to be detained without charge should be capable of being extended; whether RAF Queen's regulation 1034 should be either annulled or amended; how far the rigid application of the "need to know" principle may have the effect of depriving a suspect of the protection which the law provides for him; the effect of classifying the routine documentation in security investigations; and whether investigations such as those leading up to the Cyprus trial should be conducted from the United Kingdom rather than overseas. The Government accept all Mr. Calcutt's recommendations for further consideration, and the House will be informed of the outcome of this further work.
As far as present practice is concerned, Mr. Calcutt acknowledges that the new code of practice for the treatment and questioning of persons by the service police has now been issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and that this may at least go some way towards overcoming some of the shortcomings revealed by the inquiry. In addition, the House will wish to know that RAF Queen's regulation 1034, which provides for a form of custody short of arrest, has been suspended, and that further instructions are being issued to clarify and re-emphasise the safeguards for individuals under investigation.
Finally, I should like to express our gratitude to Mr. Calcutt for conducting his inquiry both speedily and with great thoroughness, and for producing a rigorously argued and most valuable report.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: The House owes a debt to Mr. Calcutt for this report. In the short time that we have had to glance at it, it is apparent

that the House will understand why the new Parliamentary Secretary, whom I congratulate on his appointment, moved the motion in the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill that it conclude its business before Mr. Calcutt reported. Given the cold, cruel and measured tones of Mr. Calcutt when he does not consider himself to be overly critical, I would hate to be at the receiving end of his tongue when he is.
This is one of the most devastating and horrific statements that I have ever read. It is about what happened to people described by Mr. Calcutt in paragraph 5.47 in the following terms:
With the exception of Lance Corporal Glass, who was in his early thirties, all of the servicemen were young and inexperienced. One minor matter apart, none of them had ever been in any form of trouble. They had no previous criminal convictions. They were all young men of good character. They were, however, junior in rank, and military discipline requires orders by those of a higher rank to be obeyed.
They were caught up in a web of intrigue and circumstance, of bullying and of improper treatment. If we had seen that in a weekend horror film we should have said, "That is good fiction." For this to have happened to those men is one of the worst indictments that could be made. We strongly welcome the decision to make ex gratia payments to them, but no sum of money can compensate them for what they have been through, for careers ruined and reputations blemished. Thank God they had the benefit of a British jury.
I have read the carefully constructed statement by the Minister and one has to bear in mind the background against which it was constructed. It says that we must pay attention to the difficult problems surrounding this sort of inquiry. That almost suggests that this is the first time such a thing has happened in Cyprus. We have already had one section I Cyprus spy trial, at the Old Bailey—the Mata Hari and Aircraftman Davies trial. The people who investigated for that trial were used for the second trial and the first trial collapsed around the ears of the prosecution. The Government then sought another occasion and again we had the Old Bailey, Cyprus, sex, blackmail, young men who did not know what was happening to them, and forced confessions. But again, thank God, we had a British jury. We saw the Ministry of Defence turned down by a British jury about Ponting, Davies and these eight men. In some ways we have things for which to be grateful.
Let us look at some of the things Mr. Calcutt said. In paragraph 4.197 he says:
I am of the view that the service police did caution the suspects, as they assert, though whether it meant anything to the servicemen (and whether they realised that they need not answer questions) may be open to doubt.
In paragraph 4.198 he says:
I am quite satisfied that none of the servicemen was subjected to any form of deep interrogation or to any inhuman treatment.
He further says in paragraph 4.199:
I have no doubt that the service police interviewed the suspects in a firm and vigorous way. I believe that accounts of events were suggested to the various servicemen as being the truth, and that denials often resulted in relentless and aggressive questioning.
He says in paragraphs 4.202 and 4.203:
Taken together, these coincidences and inconsistencies tend to support the view that the approach of the service police during the interviews was very far from simply being a matter of waiting for the servicemen themselves to volunteer information.
There was other evidence that the service police were willing to resort to threats during the interviews. Threats featured in the evidence of most of those who were interviewed by the service


police. The threats mentioned both at the trial and the Inquiry were of a similar pattern; first, prolonged incarceration in the event of failure to co-operate; second, threats to involve a suspect as a major spy punishable by a long prison sentence if he did not admit to being a minor spy, which would only be punishable by a short sentence; and threats to involve the suspect's family or his home in the event of failure to co-operate.
Those are all classic interrogation procedures and all meant to build up pressure. Therefore, the question one must ask is, what was improper and what was proper? Where was the line to be drawn and at what point do pressures of this sort on young men so described become degrading treatment and be seen to be so?
There are other questions that have not been answered by Mr. Calcutt. First, who manufactured the evidence to which they were forced to confess? Secondly, why are no disciplinary procedures being instigated against the people involved in these investigations? Thirdly, are the people and the House not entitled to know about what happened at that base, what was going on? Why were so many of the men who served there purged from the regiment and transferred elsewhere? Fourthly, there is ministerial responsibility in this matter: why is someone in the Government not taking the proper course and thinking about resigning'?

Mr. Stanley: The extremely exaggerated and selective accounts of the Calcutt report given by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) do not constitute a balanced view of the report, which I have read from cover to cover. If the hon. Gentleman has not done so already, I hope that he will read the report from cover to cover, because it is only by doing that that one can be in a position to take a balanced view.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging the good work carried out by Mr. Calcutt. We endorse that acknowledgement. Mr. Calcutt has made a detailed and rigorous study in a remarkably short time and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman shares our views on that.
The view taken by the majority on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill is fully vindicated by the Calcutt report. It is quite evident from the report that there is no question of the primary legislation on service discipline being called into question. It is quite apparent from Mr. Calcutt's recommendations that, if there are to be changes, they will be made to existing procedures and will almost certainly be made by administrative action, by amendment to Queen's regulations or by secondary legislation. If by chance there are to be amendments that require primary legislation, they are likely to be made in Home Office legislation to which the Ministry of Defence would be joined. It is quite evident from a careful reading of Mr. Calcutt's report that he does not call into question the primary legislation underpinning the services discipline Acts.
The hon. Gentleman said that the service men had been subjected to degrading treatment. I must make it quite clear to him and to the House that Mr. Calcutt's conclusion is quite to the contrary. I repeat what I said in my statement which reflects the conclusions of Mr. Calcutt. I said:
none of the servicemen were subjected to any violence or threats of violence, or any form of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.
That is Mr. Calcutt's conclusion.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about disciplinary action and I should like to tell the House the conclusions that we have reached on that. As the House would expect, the question of disciplinary action against any of those

involved in the custody decision, which has subsequently been held to be unlawful and improper, has been fully considered. As Mr. Calcutt's report shows, the unlawful custody arose principally through an initial interpretation of QR(RAF) 1034 which we are satisfied was given in good faith, but which was subsequently held to be unsound. As I said in my statement, that regulation has been suspended, but in these circumstances and in the absence of evidence of any culpable action or neglect on the part of any individual, it has been concluded that there are no proper grounds for disciplinary action on this score.
The question of disciplinary action against the service investigators has been considered carefully, and the conclusion of the service authorities is that there is no basis to take disciplinary action against any individuals for culpable action or neglect.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am aware that this important report has been published. I ask hon. Members to ask questions rather than to indulge in debating points.

Sir Antony Buck: Both sides of the House have expressed gratitude to Mr. Calcutt for the thoroughness of the report and the speed with which he compiled it. We are also grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for coming to the House and making this statement. Will he hive in on two further points? When will we have an opportunity to debate the matter further? I presume we may do so during our debate on the White Paper, or during single service debates. Will he hive in on the recommendations contained in the final paragraph of the report, where Mr. Calcutt suggests that matters should be investigated from the United Kingdom rather than locally, if, unfortunately, there should ever be a repetition, and where he casts doubts on the efficacy of QR1034? I think the Minister said that it was to be suspended. Is it proposed to be abolished in due course'? Will the Minister clarify the position of the regulation?

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. Further debates are a matter for the usual channels, but, obviously, as the matter affects the armed services, if hon. Members wish to make comments on this when we have a debate on the defence White Paper, that would seem to be an opportunity. The single service debates provide a further opportunity. In addition, the Opposition have their own time.
On the specific recommendation that such inquiries should in future be conducted from the United Kingdom, as I said in my statement, that is one of the seven recommendations for further consideration which Mr. Calcutt has made, and we shall obviously address that one extremely carefully.
QR(RAF) 1034 is suspended. The question of its future must be seen in the context of some other matters that Mr. Calcutt has given us to consider. In view of the critic ism which has been made of that regulation, I am certain that, if it were to be restored in any shape or form, it would be in a way which would meet the criticisms made in the report.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the Minister satisfied with the conduct of Flight Sergeant Sheehan? May I ask the Attorney-General to give a full answer to question No. 238 on the Order Paper today, particularly on the geographical limitations of Detective-Superintendent Eames?

Mr. Stanley: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has heard the hon. Gentleman's request. On the individual to whom the hon. Gentleman refers, I have already covered that matter in what I said in relation to service discipline against the service investigators.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that I would not wish to say anything at this point about SAC Owen, until I have had an opportunity to talk to him and to consider the matter further? Does my right hon. Friend accept that the most important sentence in the whole of this most impressive report is that which states:
In our society, it is for Parliament and not for investigators, however genuinely and well motivated, to decide if and when, and in what circumstances, the interests of an individual should be subordinated to the interests of society as a whole.
Will he bear that wise maxim firmly in mind?

Mr. Stanley: Certainly the whole Government would fully endorse that extremely important maxim. In view of my hon. Friend's constituent, I should like to tell the House the position of each of the eight service men. As of today the position is as follows. Four service men, Lance Corporal Glass, Signalman Hardman, Signalman Tuffy and SAC Payne, have already left the services on completion of their engagements; and a fifth service man, SAC Lightowler, has already left the RAF prematurely at his own request. Extremely careful consideration has been given to the future of the remaining three service men, SAC Jones, SAC Owen, and SAC Kriehn. Today they are being advised that the Air Force Board is being recommended to consider their discharge from the RAF. The reasons for the recommendation are being given in writing to the service men. They are being advised that they may make representations to the Air Force Board, and use the redress of grievance procedure before the board comes to a final conclusion.

Mr. James Wallace: We on the alliance Bench wish to express our gratitude to Mr. Calcutt for what, at a brief glance, seems to be a thorough report, which will certainly merit study during the coming days. I do not think that Opposition Members on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill were as convinced as the Minister and his whipped hon. Friends that there is nothing in the report which would have been a cause for proper study by the Committee.
While we acknowledge the ex gratia payments made to seven of the men involved, at first sight it appears petty and mean that, on the technicality that a point was not taken at the trial, no payment has been offered to SAC Jones. Will the Minister explain why he considers it inappropriate?
He has expressed his views on the lack of disciplinary charges brought against the men involved. While he has given an explanation about QR(RAF)1034, can he expand on why the commanding officers were given no discretion under rule 4 of the rules and regulations regarding commanding officers' discretion to hold men in close or open custody? Who refused to allow them discretion? Have disciplinary procedures been considered in respect of those senior officers? As the code of guidance, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, provides for disciplinary proceedings against police officers who breach the code of guidance, in future will there be

disciplinary procedure against service personnel who are in breach of any of the provisions of their codes of guidance?

Mr. Stanley: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I can certainly assure him that if any member of the armed forces is responsible for a breach which represents culpability, he is liable to discipline under the services discipline Acts. On his point about the Select Committee, the majority of members of the Armed Forces Bill Select Committee pointed out that the issue was not whether the matter might be studied by it, but whether it raised questions for the primary legislation underpinning the services discipline Acts, which were before the Committee. The Committee, in coming to its majority conclusion, was mindful of the fact that it is open to the Defence Select Committee, which is a permanent Committee, to look on a more long-term basis at any of the aspects of service affairs raised by the Calcutt report.
SAC Jones's eligibility for an ex gratia payment was not decided on a technicality; as I said in my statement, it was the fact that the trial judge found SAC Jones's detention to be lawful. That is the basis on which we had to conclude that an ex gratia payment would not be appropriate in his case. I am aware of the background to the hon. Gentleman's question about rule 4. Obviously, it will be considered in the context of the wider recommendations that Mr. Calcutt has made.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my right hon. Friend continue to make it clear inside and outside the House that the service police had abundant reason for thinking that a serious security breach had taken place? Is it not remarkable that, in such a meticulous report of 165 pages, so few recommendations for improvement are made, and that even they are couched in general terms?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend makes two extremely important points. In considering the background to the Calcutt report and forming its views on it, the House must be mindful of what Mr. Calcutt says in the opening sentence of paragraph 5.2:
I am satisfied that throughout the investigations the service police had reasonable — indeed abundant — grounds for believing that a breach of security had occurred in 9 Signal Regiment.
That is the fundamental backcloth to approaching the problem.
My hon. Friend's second point was extremely valid and reassuring. After the detailed and thorough investigation made by Mr. Calcutt, he has proposed seven recommendations, all of which are in the form of considerations for further study.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: May I ask my right hon. Friend to clarify his attitude to the ex gratia payment to Senior Aircraftman Jones? The Minister bases his decision not to make such a payment on the fact that the trial judge was satisfied that this person's detention was lawful. But paragraph 5.30 of the Calcutt report states:
My conclusion is that SAC Jones was lawfully arrested on 6 February but that the failure to charge him within 48 hours in accordance with rule 4 of the Rules of Procedure was a breach of that rule and rendered his continued detention until 8 March unlawful.
My right hon. Friend must agree that, if he is prepared to accept so many aspects of the Calcutt report, that point should be considered, too.
The most troubling and worrying aspect of the report is one which, in the interests of time, he did not mention:


that the investigators, worthy and conscientious though they may have been, were apparently completely blind to their conflict of interest. Understandably, they wanted to find out what had happened in terms of the security breach. In their enthusiasm, they seem to have been completely unaware that they had to consider the rights of the people whom they were investigating.
Bearing that in mind, along with what the report states about unlawful detention, does my right hon. Friend accept that, in such cases, he should not rely on the legalities and be too strict in his interpretation of the criteria for ex gratia payments? This man was acquitted. For at least part of the time, he was detained unlawfully. It is clear from the face of the report that the investigators did not consider that the defendants also had rights. Is this not a case where, if all of the others are to be given ex gratia payments, Jones should he given one too?

Mr. Stanley: I do not believe that my hon. Friend is doing the investigators full justice—he will wish to read the report from cover to cover—when he says that they were unconcerned about the rights of those whom they were investigating. No possible construction of the Calcutt report bears that out.
I fully acknowledge, as is brought out carefully by Mr. Calcutt, that there was a conflict between the counter-intelligence requirements to establish the extent of any breach of security that had occurred, and the requirements to ensure a basis for successful criminal prosecution. Mr. Calcutt has drawn attention to the need to provide guidance to investigators on how to deal with that conflict. We shall consider it carefully. It would not be right to say that the service investigators ignored the individual rights of those whom they were investigating.
My hon. Friend mentioned Senior Aircraftman Jones' entitlement to an ex gratia payment. He will understand that there is a clear difference of legal opinion on this matter. He will understand that I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence have taken the most carefully considered advice that is available to us, which is that, in view of the decision of the trial judge that Senior Aircraftman Jones's detention was lawful, it would be wrong to make an ex gratia payment in his case.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: As someone who served his national service with the royal military police, I listened to the Minister with sadness and regret. I was trained to treat suspects humanely. The Minister said that, in this case, we are discussing the unlawful custody of the men. Paragraph 6.3 states that none of the service men was told of his right to legal advice. That is a scandal. In the light of this case, will the Minister bring to the attention of the commanding officers of military police and serving police units the importance of strict adherence to the code of practice on suspects' rights?

Mr. Stanley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing that. As I said in my statement, we are issuing further instructions to clarify and re-emphasise the safeguards for individuals under investigation. I assure him that we attach the highest priority to the strictest adherence to the codes of guidance issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that I have only just heard the

recommendation for discharge in respect of Senior Aircraftman Wayne Kriehn'? My right hon. Friend has made, as he always does, a courteous effort to give advice on the matter. I must consider my position in the light of what he announced this afternoon.
Reverting to general principles, may I ask my right hon. Friend to accept that my constituent, Senior Aircraftman Kriehn, has suffered the grave injustice of unlawful detention, improper pressure, the failure, for the best part of a year, to give information to his family on the length of detention, and isolation from officers known to him? For many months, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) referred to those matters in correspondence with the Minister. I mention this not because I wish to say, "I told you so," but because I wish the Minister to say whether he believes that this shows a problem in the system that does not seem to be covered by the recommendations.
There is no ministerial intervention or senior officer intervention in the present system; nor would there be in any future system. Will my right hon. Friend give careful consideration to that aspect, to prevent another such tragedy?

Mr. Stanley: I acknowledge that my hon. Friend has been sedulous in drawing our attention to the anxieties of his constituent, Senior Aircraftman Kriehn. As for the hardships that he suffered, I assure my hon. Friend that Mr. Ogden will make his assessment of the ex gratia payment against the background of the Calcutt report.
On ministerial and senior officer involvement, my hon. Friend will be aware that the ultimate responsibility for disciplinary matters for the three services lies with the service boards, on which are represented the most senior officers of the three services, and Ministers. He will understand that it would not be appropriate, remotely practical or desirable for Ministers to become involved in the detailed handling of individual cases. We fully accept the responsibility that lies ultimately on Ministers to ensure that the instructions, guidance, regulations and, indeed, the legislation which apply when suspects are being investigated by service policemen are of a standard that would be fully acceptable to the House and comparable with what applies in the civilian sector.

Dr. Keith Hampson: My right hon. Friend will accept that Mr. Calcutt stresses that the delicate line between proper and improper behaviour was crossed. Equally, Mr. Calcutt has no doubts that the investigation and the trial were justified, despite the claims made afterwards by the press and the Opposition that the trial and inquiry were a waste of time and public money. On the contrary, there was a major security leak from that base. In the light of all that has happened, is my right hon. Friend content that there will be no further breaches of security?

Mr. Stanley: No further legal proceedings under the Official Secrets Act 1911 have been taken or are under consideration in relation to this case. I also remind my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the previous Secretary of State for Defence, took immediate steps to consider 9 Signal Regiment and its security arrangements to ensure that changes were made which would rectify the weaknesses of security which may have emerged.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked the Security Commission to examine the security of this and other similar units. I believe that everything possible and everything that is reasonable has been done to try to learn security lessons from this case.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with the exception of RAF regulation 1034, this report suggests that the new code of conduct for the interrogation of suspects under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, followed by the Armed Forces Bill, will deal with many of the problems which have arisen in this case such as the right to legal advice? The report totally vindicates the decision of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill not to pursue inquiries until this matter had come before the House.

Mr. Stanley: I believe that my hon. Friend is correct about the decision of the Select Committee. I endorse what he has said. The changes to the codes of guidance under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 should do a certain amount to deal with the problems which have arisen in this case. We are anxious that fresh instructions should be issued to highlight the importance of making certain that clear priority is given to protecting the legal rights of individuals who are investigated.

Mr. David Ashby: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the position of SAC Jones? There has been a manifest injustice in his case. The trial judge apparently ruled that the detention was lawful. By virtue of his acquittal, SAC Jones has no locus, no standing and no right of appeal, but Mr. Calcutt's report shows that the detention was unlawful. The matter was examined with great care by Mr. Calcutt. He was investigating as well as drawing conclusions. Mr. Calcutt clearly states that it was unlawful. Therefore, there is no justification for treating SAC Jones differently from the others. Justice ought to be seen to be done and, as a result of the inquiry, all the individuals should be treated equally.

Mr. Stanley: I am sure that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that Mr. Calcutt's report and inquiry do not constitute an appeal in a judicial sense. Mr. Calcutt and the trial judge made different legal interpretations. I assure my hon. Friend and others who have spoken on this point that, before this conclusion was reached, the most careful considerations had been given and the most careful advice taken.

Mr. McNamara: It seems to be common ground in the House that the case of SAC Jones should be looked at again. Despite the careful advice which has been given, I would be grateful if the Minister could say, having heard the opinions of hon. Members, that he will reconsider the case.
The letters which were sent to the Minister by the hon. Members for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) and for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) raise an important issue. I understand that the Minister could not interfere in the judicial procedure, but, if the matter went to the Air Force Board, was no notice taken of the concern which had been expressed in letters to the Minister from constituency Members regarding what was happening to people who were under inquiry? May we know the grounds upon which three men, who were found not guilty by a jury and who wish to remain in Her Majesty's Armed Forces, are being recommended for dismissal? That almost suggests that, despite the trial, despite everything which has come up before and despite the verdict of the jury, the Ministry of Defence still thinks that those men were guilty.

Mr. Stanley: I can give the hon. Member the absolute assurance that, when any hon. Member writes to the Ministry and conveys a complaint on behalf of an individual service man, that complaint is carefully investigated. A careful report is made to Ministers before they reply to an hon. Member. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is done in each and every case.
With regard to the grounds for dismissal of the remaining three senior aircraftmen still in the service, the hon. Gentleman, and, I hope, the whole House, will understand that it would be improper for me to say what those grounds are. The service men concerned are being informed of this in writing, and what use they make of that information is entirely up to them. It would not be right for me to indicate the grounds. I wish to make it clear that meticulous care has been taken to disregard any matters which were contested or disputed in the Official Secrets Act trial.

BILL PRESENTED

POLICE COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) (No. 2)

Mr. Peter Pike presented a Bill to amend the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to establish an entitlement for a complainant to have access to the report of the police on the substance of his or her complaint; to make further provision in relation to the complaints procedure; and for connected purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time Friday 6 June and to be printed. [Bill 166.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Ordered,
That European Community Document No. 4676/86, laying down definitions of fishing vessels' characteristics and measurements, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Maude.]

PATENTS, DESIGNS AND MARKS BILL [Lords]:

Ordered,
That the Patents, Designs and Marks Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Maude.]

Orders of the Day — Sex Discrimination Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Paymaster General, I should announce to the House that I have selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Paymaster General and Minister for Employment (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill has two major purposes. First, it makes a number of amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to bring it into line with European Community directives on equal treatment. Secondly, it removes sex discrimination in hours of work laid down in statutes which have for many years outlived their original purpose.
The common thread in the various provisions is the Government's genuine commitment to promote equal opportunities in employment between men and women and, in particular, to eliminate all unreasonable discrimination on the grounds of sex. This commitment is consistent with our general aim of improving the flexibility of the labour market. The removal of barriers which hinder either men or women from making their full contribution to the economy will mark a significant step towards the achievement of greater efficiency, competitiveness and prosperity.
The first two clauses stem from a judgment of the European Court of Justice which ruled that the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 did not fully comply with the European Community equal treatment directive. The judgment found the 1975 Act deficient on three counts, covering its exemption of private households and of small firms. Its application to collective agreements and the rules of undertakings and of independent occupations.
Recognising that the judgment placed on us an obligation to amend the Act, we carried out an extensive consultative exercise last autumn to establish how this could be done in a manner best fitted to our national circumstances and practice. The Bill reflects the outcome of these consultations, in which we were especially grateful to the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress for their comments and the way in which they presented them, even if it was not possible to reach general agreement on all of the issues.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way so early in his speech.
Bearing in mind what he said about there being an EEC obligation to introduce this legislation, and in view of the process of consultation that has been undertaken, will my right hon. and learned Friend say how far he is convinced that there is a legitimate role for the law in this area and what evidence he feels that there is of the success of previous efforts at law-making in trying to do away with different types of discrimination? How satisfied are he and the Government in this regard, or is this merely a matter of complying with a European Court ruling?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend raises wide issues and asks my opinion about how far the law is relevant to the subject of equal opportunities. The House accepted the principle that there was a role for the law in race relations and sex discrimination many years ago. We have the 1975 Act, and successive Governments have believed that they have complied with the equal treatment directive, which they have followed. The Bill would merely amend the law to comply with the judgment and ensure that we match its requirements more directly.
I see that my hon. Friend is sceptical about the legal approach. I go along with him to the extent that the law cannot completely remove prejudice and unfairness in personal relations between people in any society, least of all in a free society such as ours, but I believe that the law has a useful role to play.
When people can demonstrate that they are the victims of unfair discrimination which the bulk of society would say was unfair, it is right that there should be some form of legal machinery that gives them a remedy. We cannot change human nature, but the law has some role to play in protecting individuals in their workplace from the consequences of the worst aspects of human nature. That is what we are trying to do.

Mr. Richard Holt: I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way. It is not sexual prejudice or otherwise.
Was the list of consultations that he gave complete or did he speak to the Institute of Personnel Management, chambers of commerce an others at the sharp end of the operation?

Mr. Clarke: I named three of the larger and better known institutions. The Equal Opportunities Commission had to be consulted, and the CBI and the TUC are concerned with hours of work and the like. We consulted the Institute of Personnel Management and a wide range of other bodies. The ramifications of legislation such as this are such that I am sure that it will transpire that we have missed out some relevant body which we ought to have consulted. Whenever possible, however, we have consulted all those that are likely to be affected.
I shall give the House a quick guide to the clauses. Clause 1 repeals section 6(3) of the 1975 Act, which exempts private households and businesss with five or fewer employees from the requirement not to discriminate in employment. The clause makes a new, more limited, exception for private households. This will protect an employer's freedom to choose a man or woman for a job which involves living or working in a private home where there could be quite reasonable objection to someone of the other sex having such physical or social contact with a person living in the home, or the knowledge of intimate details of such a person's life, which the job is likely to entail.
This part of the Bill seeks to strike a balance between contrasting considerations which were clearly present in the judgment. The court concluded that the present general exemption for employment in private households was too wide, but acknowledged that the principle of respect for private life was fundamental and could be decisive for the treatment of certain kinds of private household employment. We have no wish to bring the law governing public employment relationships into people's private living arrangements. I am sure that the overwhelming


majority of public opinion and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) would agree that people should be free to choose the sex of employees who will be closely involved in their home life. I hope that the wording of the clause, which has been improved in another place, safeguards that principle.
Clause 1 also removes the exemption for firms with five or fewer employees. This is necessary to comply with the equal treatment directive. We agree, of course, that it is not in any way reasonable for such firms to practise sex discrimination. Discrimination is unfair and inefficient in a business of any size. We still question whether it is really appropriate to seek the objective of equal treatment by applying to all small firms a law designed to meet the circumstances of larger employers. The Labour party presumably recognised that when it included this exemption in the 1975 Act. Small firms play a vital part in the creation of wealth and new employment, and we want them to be able to concentrate on making their businesses grow with the minimum of rules and regulations. For that reason, we have proposed in the European Community that member states should have the power to exempt very small enterprises from national provisions implementing the equal treatment directive.
We are anxious to give as much help as we can to small firms which will have to comply with the minutia of sex discrimination law for the first time, although I hope that they already comply with the spirit of it. Our Department will therefore give priority to issuing simplified explanatory guidance following the passage of the Bill, and we shall ensure that our small firms service can give informed advice.
Before I leave clause 1, I should say that it has been improved in another place by the addition of a provision concerning partnerships. At present, it is unlawful for firms consisting of six or more partners to discriminate in the selection or treatment of partners. In future, the Sex Discrimination Act will apply to partnerships of all sizes. This is a logical extension of the clause which reflects women's marked entry into self-employment in the past few years. Between 1983 and 1985, the number of self-employed women in the United Kingdom rose by some 25 per cent.
Clause 2 is also designed to bring our equality laws into line with European Community directives. It is concerned with contractual matters, and the House will have an opportunity to discuss its technicalities in Committee. The European Court judgment requires us to make void discriminatory provisions in collective agreements, internal rules of undertakings and rules governing the independent occupations and professions. The court accepted that our law partly implemented this aspect of the equal treatment directive through section 77 of the present Sex Discrimination Act. That section makes void discriminatory terms in contracts—which would include a legally binding collective agreement—but we need to make corresponding provision for agreements and rules which are not legally enforceable.
Although the judgment concerned only the EC equal treatment directive, there is a parallel requirement in the equal pay directive. Clause 2 therefore amends section 77 of the Sex Discrimination Act to make void any term of a collective agreement, whether or not legally enforceable, and any rule made by an employer for his or her employees

or prospective employees in so far as it would result in a breach of either the Sex Discrimination Act or the Equal Pay Act 1970. The same applies to any rule made by an organisation of employers or workers, a professional or trade association or a body which confers qualifications. The voiding of discriminatory terms and rules will not impair employees' rights under their contracts of employment, which are specifically protected by the clause.
As for the remaining clauses, perhaps I might quote the Bill's long title. It would
provide for the removal of certain restrictions applying to the working hours and other working conditions of women; and … repeal the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954".
Their origins, too, can be traced back to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. In establishing the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Act included among its functions a duty to keep under review, in consultation with the Health and Safety Commission, provisions of health and safety at work legislation which require men and women to be treated differently. A prominent part of such legislation is that concerning hours of work.
Following a review of the legislation, the EOC issued in 1979 its report entitled "Health and Safety Legislation: Should We Distinguish Between Men and Women?" As for hours of work legislation, its answer to the question that it had itself posed was a resounding no.
The EOC's report went rather wider than hours of work legislation. It dealt, for example, with safeguards against exposure to lead and to radiation in the workplace where a woman's reproductive capacity or the safety of her unborn child might be put at risk. None of these areas is in any way touched upon by the Bill.
I return to the issue of hours of work. Current legislation distinguishes between men and women in ways on which I shall elaborate shortly; how can this discrimination be removed? In the broadest possible terms, we face a choice. We can remove restriction altogether by repeal or we can extend the present legislation so that the restrictions continue to apply but to men and women alike.
There have been six long years of consultations with interested parties following the EOC's report and so far no consensus on the best way forward can be reached, and there is little practical likelihood that it will. In particular, the views of employer and trade union representatives on the Health and Safety Commission could not be fully reconciled. No one has ever suggested in all the discussions that women, for some reason, are more susceptible than men to any adverse effects which might stem from night work or working long hours. Equally, no one suggests nowadays that women are in greater need of protection. The origin of the requirements that relate to the working hours of women must go back to a time when society widely believed that the weaker sex required greater protection. As I have said, that is no longer anyone's opinion, as far as we can judge from the consultations.
There is no evidence that the existing restrictions are making any effective contribution to the health and safety of women working in factories or of men in baking. The restrictions did, however, clearly represent obstacles to women wishing to broaden their experience in pursuit of career opportunities, and just as clearly were an unnecessary complication for employers wishing to organise the hours of their work force to optimum effect.
The Government have decided that there must be a resolution of these issues. We cannot have discriminatory legislation on hours of work remaining on the statute book. The Government concluded last year that further consideration of the EOC's 1979 recommendations by the parties most affected would be unlikely to achieve consensus against the background of six years' continuing disagreement. The Government therefore decided upon repeal of the existing hours of work legislation.
The Bill has reached this House from another place with this intention broadly intact, although it now contains further provisions, whose introduction was opposed by the Government in the other place and to which I shall return in a moment. It was also argued in another place that rather than repeal the existing legislation, we should give more sympathetic consideration to its extension to men. I should like to examine this contention now in a little more detail.
The argument runs that long hours and, in particular, night working, can have a deleterious effect on workers' health, welfare and social well-being. It is therefore argued that it is the role of the legislator to protect the worker from his employer, and presumably often from himself, as it is not unusual for the worker to seek night work or overtime as a boost to earnings.
Nobody — certainly not this Government — would dispute that excessively long hours of onerous night working might bring adverse effects. We do not believe, however, that the agreements entered into voluntarily between employers and their work forces on hours of work have this as their end result in the circumstances of today. We certainly see no point in extending to men the rigid restrictions which currently apply to women.
The existing restrictions for women reflect the circumstances of the time of the legislation's introduction, when five 12-hour day or night shifts, or sometimes these hours spread over six-day working, were the norm, with significant overtime working in addition. This legislation dates from the mid-19th century, and as late as 1900 hours worked averaged almost 54 each week. But the overall average in 1985 was just over 40. In the present age of new technology, computer-controlled equipment tends to work longer each day, while those who tend it work shorter average hours, but need at the same time to operate more flexible working patterns. We are accordingly seeing the introduction into manufacturing industry of flexitime arrangements along the lines which have become familiar in white-collar employment.
Information technology is changing the nature of work in the factory to something more closely akin to office work than the traditional production line grind. The flexible working arrangements necessary to encourage these developments, especially when based on a flexible working year, but even when based on a monthly or weekly cycle, would clearly be impeded by the existing rigid restrictions applying to women.

Mr. John Evans: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that employees in the baking industry work longer hours than any other group of workers in our society apart from merchant navy seamen? The average working week in the baking industry is in excess of 60 hours. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman expect repeal to increase or reduce those hours? Would it not have been better to allow the legislation to remain on the statute book, bearing in mind

that there is no demand for its repeal from major employers or the trade unions, and to extend the protection that it affords to women?

Mr. Clarke: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have first-hand experience of night working in the baking industry. Baking has always been a fairly nocturnal activity as people buy in the morning fresh bread that has been cooked for them the night before. As I understand it, however, modern technology and newer types of bread are rather reducing that practice. I do not claim typical experience, but between leaving school and going to university I worked for a couple of months as a night worker in a bakery. I did all sorts of unpleasant jobs, such as greasing tins in the middle of the night. My experience was as a worker in the industry. I opted deliberately for permanent night work and sought the maximum amount of overtime, and I think that many workers still do that
Collective agreements already override the legislation in a large part of the baking industry, and I do not believe that we are still in a position in which it is necessary to protect bakery workers from exploitation, which was intended to be suppressed when the legislation was put on to the statute book. In practice and reality, the legislation is rather liked by trade unions in the industry. It tends to ensure that the industry remains unionised because there can be exemptions only as a result of collective agreements. It improves the bargaining position of the unions vis-à-vis the employers as they negotiate exemptions from the Act. I do not believe that we are protecting downtrodden workers in the baking industry, even though I do not base my argument on a 20-year-old recollection of those I worked alongside during the night and on overtime, when there was legislation to protect us.
There is a gap between the legislation on women's working hours and some of the defences of it and what actually exists as a result of modern social conditions. I shall spell out the complexities of the restrictions on women's hours which are imposed by just one piece of legislation, the Factories Act 1961. Clause 4 provides for the repeal of the provisions, along with similar provisions in the Hours of Employment (Convention) Act 1936 and in the Mines and Quarries Act 1954. These restrictions currently cover only 1·5 million women, working mainly in manufacturing industry, out of a total of 9 million who are employed within the labour force. It seems that no one has thought it necessary to protect the remaining 7·5 million women by means of the present curious requirements.
The 1·5 million women who are covered by the collection of legislation to which I have referred cannot work more than nine hours a day within an 11 -hour period of employment, subject to a maximum of 48 hours a week. They cannot start before 7 am or finish later than 8 pm, or 1 pm on Saturdays. Sunday working is prohibited. The maximum continuous spell of work is limited to four and a half hours, or five hours if a 10-minute break is allowed. Any employer with women and young people on his books must post a notice setting out the full schedule of their starting times, finishing times and intervals, which the legislation stipulates should apply to all alike.
This is not the whole story. The legislation provides for some exceptions and variations. I have so far explained the detailed instructions applying to factories working a six-day week, but the permitted daily hours are somewhat extended for factories normally working a five-day week.


The legislation also allows for each factory the working of "overtime" — which is different from that normally regarded as overtime for payment purposes—during six hours in any week, not exceeding 100 hours during the calendar year and confined to 25 weeks during the year, as long as for each employee the total daily working hours do not exceed 10, and provided that the maximum period of employment does not exceed 12 hours in a day. Finishing times for overtime can be no later than 9 pm, but still 1 pm on Saturdays.
There is provision for yet further extensions to the hours that may be worked by the making of regulations, providing that the Secretary of State is satisfied that work in any class of factory is
subject to seasonal or other special pressure".
For instance, regulations permit the employment of women from 6 am if they work in a laundry, a milk or cheese factory, or are employed in bread, flour, confectionery or sausage manufacture.
I have inflicted on the House this tedious recital of the legislation on the statute book because it clarifies the choice between whether we should repeal all of it if it applies to only 1·5 million out of 9 million working women, or whether we should apply it all to men involved in similar activities. I believe that repeal is obviously the answer.
There is also provision enabling the Health and Safety Executive to permit an employer to run his factory on a shift basis. That is all prescribed in the legislation in a detailed way which obviously inhibits the flexibility of employers engaged in particular manufacturing processes. In this day and age it is quite absurd for the law to meddle in such a detailed and prescriptive manner in the arrangements which employers and employees need to agree for the running of any enterprise. We live in a world in which flexibility is increasingly at a premium. Indeed, the legislation avoids ultimate absurdity by making provisions under which the Health and Safety Executive can give special exemption orders from those detailed restrictions, renewable on an annual basis, to employers who argue increased efficiency in justification. The Health and Safety Executive has not in recent years refused such a request. In 1984–85, more than 4,000 special exemption orders were granted, covering more than 200,000 of the 1·5 million women in manufacturing. Almost half those exemption orders allowed some night working by women.
Far from being an argument for retaining or extending the existing legislation, the "flexibility" provided by this exemption procedure if anything strengthens the case for repeal. Had there been anything to be gained by these restrictions, ready exemptions by the granting of such orders largely neutralised any effect the legislation might otherwise have had. We are left with a near-meaningless rigmarole of complex restrictions which may be lifted by invoking a bureaucratic procedure at the cost of the employer's, and incidentally the Health and Safety Executive's, time and energy, with no obvious benefit to anybody.
Opposition Members will no doubt argue that, in spite of the dearth of prosecutions or other enforcement action, it is only the existence of the legislation which deters the rogue employer from transgressing or, where he applies

for a special exemption order, which persuades him to be reasonable in his requests. I quite frankly find that incredible.

Mr. Evans: The Minister should wait until we have made our arguments before he starts replying to them.

Mr. Clarke: I look forward to hearing those arguments, but the complexities I have described are impossible to defend. I am no longer even able to think of arguments that could be raised in defence of the present legislation.
Clause 5 repeals the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954.

Mr. Ken Weetch: In Committee, do the Government intend to remove clause 3?

Mr. Clarke: Yes. If I remember correctly, that clause was inserted into the Bill in the other place. It seeks to postpone the implementation of part of the legislation in the hope that a consensus might still emerge from the discussions. We will listen to any arguments put forward both on Second Reading and in Committee, but at present I believe that the clause represents the triumph of hope over experience, and will merely delay a desirable reform.
But the House is impatiently waiting for me to return to the subject of the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954. That Act, which regulates the hours which men may work within the baking industry and specifically excludes women from its provisions, would, with the repeal of the restrictions on women's hours of work envisaged by the Bill, regulate the work of men in bakeries while women's hours were totally unregulated. I hope that all hon. Members agree that that would clearly be ridiculous.
Currently, exemptions may be given under the baking Act by the Secretary of State, which suspend the statutory restrictions on hours of work. These exemption orders in effect substitute regimes of hours of work forming parts of different collective agreements covering different employers and unions within the industry. The six collective agreements on the strength of which past Secretaries of State have granted exemptions over the years now set the hours of work of over two thirds of the industry.
The Act was introduced initially not out of concern for the effects of shift patterns in the industry on the operatives' health or safety, but because of the long history of weaknesses in the industry's machinery for collective bargaining. It is the Government's view that this weakness is no longer apparent and that there is no longer any justification for trying to alter this industry's collective bargaining by statute, when in no other similar industry is this done. This Act was ripe for repeal, and the other repeals envisaged by the Bill make this the suitable and necessary occasion.
The unions in the industry and the Equal Opportunities Commission, both in the 1979 report and during the recent consultations on the Bill's proposals, have argued for the Act's extension to women instead of its repeal. The Federation of Plant Bakers strongly favoured repeal while other employees' federations were generally supportive of this view. The Government have decided, for reasons that I have explained, in favour of repeal. Moreover, the extension to women of this outmoded legislation would be totally inconsistent with the need to avoid unnecessary and burdensome restrictions on enterprise—a subject that we have already touched on today.
I turn to those clauses that were introduced into the Bill in the other place after the Government had argued against them. I have already dealt with clause 3. As I said to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch), it is far from clear to the Government that anything would be gained by yet further rounds of consultations on this issue when six years of that have resulted only in stalemate.
Clause 7, on what is described as the "protection of existing conditions", incorporates the statutory restrictions that are to be repealed into the existing employee's contract of employment and ensures that dismissal for refusing to accept new hours of work would be treated by an industrial tribunal as automatically unfair. We understand why there may be concern for the transitional effects on employees for whom statutory restrictions would no longer apply. But we are not convinced that a complicated and far-reaching provision, that in some ways duplicates and in others expands upon other legislative protections, is necessary, or indeed justified, in these circumstances.
There will be cases where the employee can rely on the implied term in the contract, which is already there, governing hours of work. Obviously employers and employees will need to discuss any suggestions about changes in the hours of work. But clause 7 would reduce the flexibility available to industry under the existing law. At this stage that seems to be quite unnecessary.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: It is of considerable concern that an amendment may be moved later that would make employment in women's colleges and schools contrary to the legislation, following a ruling of the European Court. That would mean discrimination against women in their employment. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is genuine concern about that? Can he give me—as I am sure that he will—a complete assurance that such fears are groundless?

Mr. Clarke: With my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, I am pursuing the implications of proposals that might be made for certain women's colleges and universities whose statutes presently prohibit them from advertising for men for academic posts. We shall have to consider that.
I understand that there is alarm in some of the women's colleges that such a change would have an adverse effect on the character of the academic institutions. I shall continue to consider that point.
At the moment, the Bill does not affect women's colleges. It is my desire that we pass this legislation in a way that actually improves and strengthens our law and protects us against unfair discrimination. It is also my desire that we should not be led into absurdity in so doing. I shall consider with sympathy the points made by both my hon. Friends and consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science who is interested in this matter. Indeed, it might well be part of his responsibility.

Mr. Steve Norris: Will my right hon. and learned Friend note that interest in this matter is not confined to the younger universities but exists in older institutions than that represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James)? This afternoon the principal of St. Hilda's college, Oxford, contacted me specifically to express her concern at the prospect of any such change. I am grateful for the

assurances that my right hon. and learned Friend has given. Will he ensure that any steps to alter the present position and take away the exemption provided by section 51 of the 1975 Act are taken only after the fullest consideration?

Mr. Clarke: I appreciate that my hon. Friend, who represents an Oxford constituency, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) have a close interest in this matter. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) was lobbying me in the House last night. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office has raised this matter with me, as has my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. Indeed, my wife was educated at Newnham college, Cambridge. It is obvious that there is considerable, widespread and influential concern about this matter. Obviously we must consider it seriously. I assure my hon. Friends that we are consulting the principals of the colleges most concerned and will take no steps until that consultation is complete.

Mr. Forth: I speak on behalf of liberated women who are not incarcerated in all-women colleges. My right hon. and learned Friend will be undermining the serious principles of equality of opportunity for liberated and confident women who can make their own way in the world if he allows the perpetuation of an anomaly which, if it were done by men, would be castigated and criticised by everybody. Will he give me an assurance that in considering representations from his friends and his right hon. and hon. Friends he will pay equal attention to the considerations of fairness and genuine equality and not allow this anomaly to be perpetuated?

Mr. Clarke: I assure my hon. Friend that we will consult on the widest possible basis and listen to all views. I am absolutely certain that the merits of single-sex education versus co-education are outside my immediate sphere of responsibility, and I shall most emphatic ally put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science all the points that have been made.

Mr. Evans: It is always nice to hear concern for women who apparently have such influential and high-powered friends. No doubt their case will be well heard. May I bring the House back to the position of women at a much lesser level? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that his announcement that the Government intend to remove clauses 3 and 7 is absolutely outrageous? Why is it that when the Government were trying to bribe their Back Benchers to get the Shops Bill through the House they promised that they would enshrine the rights of shopworkers in the legislation, while in this Bill they are apparently happy to remove the rights of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of workers? Why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that clause 7 is a valuable protection for millions of workers?

Mr. Clarke: I repeat that we will listen to the arguments. I do not think that we can establish a general principle that every time this House considers modest amendments to employment legislation it is necessary to enshrine in statutory form a rigid protection of the existing position for all existing employees. Indeed, it is not only protection for employees — clause 7 proposes a rigid statutory straitjacket, tighter than that which currently exists, on working conditions in industries.
Those clauses will have to be seriously considered in Committee. Obviously, we have been considering them since they were first introduced in another place. To be fair, I am telling the House today that our reaction to clauses 3 and 7 is unfavourable. To complete the hon. Gentleman's distress, I can tell him that our attitude is much the same to clause 8 on changing hours of work. That clause imposes on all employers proposing significant changes in hours a new statutory duty for the health, safety, welfare and interests of employees, especially those with domestic and family responsibilities. It also allows the Health and Safety Commission to issue a code of practice containing practical guidance on the entirety of that duty.
As I said a few moments ago, the pattern of work that is emerging in today's more modern economy calls for ever-increasing flexibility in working arrangements. This country must not stick to a rigid nine-to-five, five-day week pattern of working in manufacturing or service industries. It is in the interests of both employers and employees to move to more flexible arrangements. There is tremendous growth in the amount of self-employment, part-time employment, short-term working, flexi-hours, varied shift systems and so on.
When we consider in Committee the arguments about clause 8 we will have to address ourselves to the problem that, on the face of it, it appears to impose on any employer wanting to make a change in the hours of work a detailed statutory duty to inquire into the personal interests and circumstances of each and every employee before making those changes. I understand the motives that lay behind clause 8, but I am not satisfied that it is in the interests of women, men or British industry to introduce such a clause.

Mr. Holt: Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that the implementation date of the Act will be as set out in the Bill? Notwithstanding the consultations between the Health and Safety Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission, can my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that if they cannot get together and reach a conclusion as they have done with the Bill over a six-year period, any employer who makes substantial changes in the meantime will not be taken to an industrial tribunal and found automatically guilty simply because those two learned bodies have not reached a conclusion?

Mr. Clarke: The lack of agreement is principally between the employers' representatives and the trade union representatives within the Health and Safety Commission. It is our intention to proceed as stated in the Bill. I realise that my hon. Friend believes that it is time to reach a decision on these matters, which continuing consultation is not likely to resolve. It is contrary to the spirit of all legislation to introduce new statutory procedures that employers must follow before they can make any substantial changes in hours of work. We will listen carefully to what is said in a debate on these three new clauses, and obviously these matters will be dealt with in Committee.
To sum up on the repeals, the present legislation is discriminatory and sets obstacles in the way of womens' opportunities in manufacturing industry. For those women it can limit their access to shifts paying premium rates and, moreover, hamper them in gaining necessary experience on the way up the promotion ladder. If it offers them any

real protection at all, which I doubt, it is against ills that are singularly vaguely defined, and it does so with very inconclusive results. It imposes burdens on the employer which, in the circumstances, are unnecessary and unjustifiable and which hence should be lifted at the earliest sensible opportunity. It is our intention to do so.
I wish to outline the major addition that the Government intend to make to the Bill in Committee. The House will know that the Government plan to take the opportunity presented by the Bill to give effect in our legislation to the judgment of the European Court of Justice issued on 26 February in the case of Marshall versus South-West Hampshire area health authority.
The judgment stated that it was contrary to article 5(1) of the equal treatment directive for an employer to dismiss a woman solely because she had reached state pensionable age where that age was different for women and men. The court also ruled that the article could be relied upon as against a state authority acting in its capacity as an employer, and to that extent the judgment took effect immediately. The new clause that we shall table will mean that employers must change policies that currently oblige women to retire at an earlier age than men in similar circumstances.
The Government have been concerned to take action as soon as possible following the judgment, to avoid the unsettling effects of uncertainty both for employers and employees. We accordingly carried out a rapid consultation exercise during April, receiving comments from some 90 interested organisations. I am glad to say that there was virtually unanimous support for our view that the judgment should be implemented in the Bill.
It is clearly difficult, if not impossible, to contest the general principle that women should be entitled to work for as long as their male colleagues. I should like to pay a personal tribute to Miss Marshall for her determination in fighting her case and winning a place in the long history of the movement to establish equal rights for women. It is both fair and economically desirable that women who wish to go on exercising their skills and contributing to the economy should be able to do so to the same age as men.
The change marks an important step forward. I urge employers to begin thinking now about any consequential changes they will need to make in their policies. At the same time, I must emphasise the limits of the amendment, in that it will not affect either occupational or state pensions—a question which was not affected by the Marshall judgment, as I explained in the House.
The Government raised the possibility —I imagine hon. Members will refer to it in the debate—in their Green Paper on the reform of social security, issued in June 1985, of moving towards what we described as a decade of retirement in which both men and women could choose to retire between 60 and 70 with a higher or lower pension, depending on whether they retired earlier or later.
There is a strong case for making this a longer term aim, as an effective means of establishing equal treatment between the sexes as well as for other reasons; but the cost implications could, of course, be very substantial as they would for any equalisation of state pension ages below the age of 64. We would certainly not wish to hold up action on the European Court's judgment — even if we were able to do so — until the major questions of future pensions provision were resolved.

Mr. Neil Thorne: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that that means that women who retire at 65 will receive a higher pension than men who retire at the same age?

Mr. Clarke: That is the case, and it has always been the case. Anyone who defers his state retirement in this country gets an increment for each year by which he defers it. So long as we have different ages for state retirement, if both men and women remain working until they are 65 the woman will receive a higher pension. On an actuarial basis, she is likely to receive it for longer than her male colleague. In many people's opinion, the state pension system is discriminatory in favour of women. They tend to contribute less and receive their pensions for longer. They can receive a higher pension if they defer retirement. That is a long-standing policy, not touched on by the Bill. I am describing a way forward which would remove any discriminatory effects, and which was canvassed in the Green Paper. We cannot wait for that longer-term aim to be implemented before we act on the Marshall judgment.
We shall also be tabling an amendment to section 47 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which deals with the provision of single sex training. Under that section, training bodies may offer vocational courses or other encouragement to women only—or to men only—with a view to their entering work in which they are seriously under-represented, or to help them return to the labour market after a spell of domestic or family responsibilities.
The main object of the Act is, of course, to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of sex and to promote equal opportunities between men and women. Discrimination in favour of one or the other is allowed only in exceptional circumstances. That is presumably why only the Manpower Services Commission, industrial training boards and training bodies designated for this purpose by the Secretary of State were empowered to run single-sex courses under section 47. I am sure that those who drew up the present Act were right to provide the filter of designation, ensuring that the section would not be abused to undermine the principle of equality then being introduced into law.
However, the situation has changed markedly over the 10 years since the Act came into operation. In particular, much more attention is being given to training women for occupations associated with engineering and new technology, where extra talent is needed to alleviate skill shortages, together with a general public acceptance that such training is justified. This has led to a welcome increase over the past two years in the number of training bodies seeking designation, and there are now some 150 designated bodies compared with 46 at the end of 1983.
We have looked at the situation carefully and concluded that there are no great advantages in retaining designation, and obvious benefits to training bodies in dispensing with the paper work involved in the designation process. Therefore, we intend to remove the need for persons to be designated to run these training courses, although the training would still have to conform to the strict requirements of section 47 in other respects. I must also emphasise that discrimination, including so-called positive discrimination, in recruitment of employees will remain unlawful.
I have described one or two quite important matters which we shall be adding to the Bill in Committee and which I believe will have widespread support in the House.

I commend the Bill to the House as one which admirably combines two very desirable objectives—the furthering of equal opportunities and the removal of needless bureaucracy. The Bill will eliminate a number of legal loopholes in our sex discrimination law and bring us more closely into line with Community law. It should also make a modest contribution to labour market flexibility and the ability of business to respond to changed economic and social conditions.
I ask the I louse to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Ms. Jo Richardson: I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the Government's acceptance of the European Community ruling that the Sex Discrimination Act should be strengthened to apply to small firms, private households, partnerships and collective agreements; but declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which fails to apply the Act to collective agreements and which seeks to repeal the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954 rather than extending protective legislation to women as well as men.
The Paymaster General and Minister for Employment made a most interesting speech. As the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. John Evans) and I followed it, we saw that it was an exact repetition, word for word, of what Lord Young said in the House of Lords. Every now and again the right hon. and learned Gentleman diverted and threw in a bombshell, such as that he would remove—it is a disgraceful move—clauses 3, 7 and 8 from the Bill. Some good debates took place in the House of Lords on those clauses.
The Bill, as the Paymaster General said at the beginning of his speech, needs to be considered and adjudged as two quite separate and, in a way, unrelated pieces of legislation. Clauses 1 and 2 have been forced on the Government by the European Court and the EEC equal treatment directive, when the Court found the United Kingdom's legislation on sex discrimination deficient in three areas— private households, small businesses and collective agreements. The EEC has urged the Government to act on those areas since 1983, when the Court made the ruling. It has taken three years for the Government to do something.
The Government, with their consistent record of obstructing every practical and progressive measure towards promoting real and meaningful equality of opportunity for women, have been delaying ever since, until they found a way to use it as a camouflage for one of their top priority ideological commitments — to dismantle, bit by bit, all employment protection legislation and health and safety regulations, and to further weaken the rights of all workers against exploitation in a so-called free market economy.
Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill are a direct consequence of the Government's determination to turn back the clock to pre-Victorian conditions of employment for men and women. We must remember that the Government announced their intention to amend and repeal legislation governing women's hours and times of work in what I call the infamous "Lifting the Burden" White Paper — the same paper which lists, among its achievements, extending the qualifying period for unfair dismissal, exempting young people, reducing the scope of regulation of the wages councils and revoking over 300 individual health and safety regulations since 1980. Only this


afternoon we have seen the introduction of a further White Paper under the title of "Building Businesses — Not Barriers" which, broadly speaking, has the same theme.
No court ruling on equal opportunities was needed to prod reluctant Tory Ministers into producing those so-called anti-discrimination measures. Clauses 4 and 5 are all their own work. It is true that they have tried to hide their true intentions behind the Equal Opportunities Commission report, published seven years ago, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, on the question of health and safety legislation which distinguishes between men and women. The commissioners were not in unanimous agreement on the report, and the Health and Safety Executive could not agree on implementation.
However, even this flimsy cover has been blown by, among others, the chairperson of the Equal Opportunities Commission. She was appointed by the Government and sits on the Government side in the other place. She was forced into moving amendments and dividing the other place against the Government in an attempt to improve a seriously deficient Bill.
I take this opportunity to congratulate those of their Lordships who took a serious interest in the Bill, not only on the changes that they have succeeded in making to it, albeit to be wrecked shortly, but on their thoughtful and sensitive approach to a complex and controversial issue. In distinct contrast to Conservative peers, they demonstrated a genuine commitment to the principle of repealing discriminatory legislation, and an understanding of, and support for, the need for legislation to protect the health, safety and welfare of all workers.
Moreover, they showed an equal commitment to and understanding of the particular consideration that must be given to women in a society such as ours, that still fails to provide the economic and social environment that is a prerequisite of real equality for women. Important amendments were won in the other place, but are now to be lost — not without a fight, I warn the Paymaster General. Amendments affecting partnerships and applications for employment within the scope of the Sex Discrimination Act were accepted by the Government but others, such as protection against unfair dismissal provision for equal protection orders and a code of practice for employers, in clauses 3, 7 and 8, which were forced on the Government, are to be taken out. Even if those clauses were kept in the Bill, it would still have major deficiencies.
We generally welcome clause 1, which brings private households, small businesses and partnerships within the scope of the Sex Discrimination Act. However, we have serious reservations about clause 1 (2)(ba)(ii). We support the provision in subsection (2)(ba)(i) for the freedom of women and men to choose a woman or a man for a job where the employee will be living in a private home, and where there is a real objection to someone of the opposite sex having:
the degree of physical or social contact with a person living in the home".
However, we cannot and will not accept that the
knowledge of intimate details of such a person's life
should be allowed to determine the sex of the prospective employee.
The Government have given no clear explanation of the meaning of the words "intimate details" and no coherent reason for including this exemption. The EOC has already given warning that this lack of clarity could give rise to legal conflict, and has asked for subsection (2)(ba)(ii) to be deleted. We shall be tabling an amendment along those lines. I hope that between now and the beginning of the Committee, the Minister will look again at the debate in the other place carefully to see whether that should be done.
We accept that trust and confidence are of vital importance when an employee can obtain information in the course of his or her work in the employer's house, but we do not accept that the sex of the employee is relevant in securing that trust and confidence.
Clause 2 is similarly welcome in principle. It deals with discriminatory terms in collective agreements and any rule made by an employer or an organisation that discriminates against, or treats more favourably, any person employed by, or applying to join, the company. However, because the Government have again chosen to take minimal action —they have opted for voiding such terms and rules—we have serious reservations about the effectiveness of clause 2 as it stands.
We should like an assurance from the Government that the section dealing with the rules of organisations will permit offices and posts to be held exclusively by women as part of an anti-discrimination or positive action policy. This is an extremely important measure that will help to give women some status and help them into better jobs.

Mr. David Ashby: Do I understand that the hon. Lady is suggesting positive discrimination — in other words, discrimination against men?

Ms. Richardson: I am suggesting an anti-discrimination, or a positive action policy, which it is important to have. The hon. Member is obviously shocked, but that does not surprise me. It is a shock when somebody challenges the power of men, who have positive discrimination the whole time. We are saying that women should have a bit of positive discrimination and action, and that is the line we intend to pursue in Committee.

Mr. Forth: Not a chance.

Ms. Richardson: Not with you lot over there.
Secondly, we can see no justification for the abolition, through clause 6, of the Central Arbitration Committee's jurisdiction in respect of section 3 of the Equal Pay Act. We consider that this opportunity should have been used to review and strengthen the functions of the CAC, to involve it in the provisions of clause 2, especially with regard to the recently debated EEC 1986–90 programme of action for equal opportunity. Some Conservative Members may have participated in the rather disgraceful exhibition on the Conservative Benches last week. The programme of action announced the Commission's intentions to investigate the feasibility of drafting a directive that would provide for class action in equal pay for work of equal value rulings.
Furthermore, clause 2 fails to provide for the removal of discriminatory items in collective agreements and rules, which means that they will remain unless or until they are removed by renegotiation or as a result of individual complaints and a successful decision in a court or tribunal.


Such a piecemeal approach will lead to inconsistencies and confusion for everybody concerned—the individuals, the employees, the employers and the trade unions. It will encourage an increase of unnecessary legislation and conflict, with at best patchy and at worse contradictory agreements and rules. The failure to provide a centrally recognised mechanism for arbitration and enforcement will be particularly problematic in indirect discrimination cases, which have always proved to be the most difficult disputes.
Again I express my horror — that is not too exaggerated a word — over the announcement that the Government intend to delete clause 3. I had intended to say how much I welcomed the clause that was introduced in the other place by Lord Wedderburn of Charlton. My intention was to ask the Government what status is attached to the clause, but thanks to the timely intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch), who quickly managed to nail down the Paymaster General, we now know that it is to be deleted. That is outrageous, as is the removal of clauses 7 and 8.
As the Government intend to repeal protective legislation, clauses 7 and 8 were designed to provide a different kind of protection by the laying down of standards and guidelines. I hope that the Paymaster General intends to listen in Committee to the arguments for the retention of the three clauses. They are extremely important. Without them, the Bill will be horrendous for many women.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Of course we shall listen to the arguments. However, I ask the hon. Lady, who has expressed horror about the possible removal of clause 3, to reflect on the fact that all that has been achieved by clause 3 as it stands is that nothing can be done for at least a year and that another report should be published after further consultation with employers, trade unions and others. I am all in favour of consultation, but does the hon. Lady not accept that there have been six years of discussion and that a complete stalemate has obviously been reached? The only purpose, therefore, of clause 3 is to create futher delay, which I do not believe can be of enormous importance.

Ms. Richardson: There has been a substantial reaction to the Bill from the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Trades Union Congress, the National Council for Civil Liberties and other organisations. Those who followed its passage through the other place warmly welcomed the inclusion of clause 3. We believe that the delay for which it provides will ensure that employers have guidelines to follow. Perhaps "horror" was too exaggerated a word, but it leapt to my lips because I was stunned by the announcement. Nevertheless, I am dismayed that the clause is to be deleted and that the curbing mechanism that is provided for in clause 3 will not be there to provide help for women in many organisations.
Clause 4 repeals important terms and conditions that provide protection for women workers. That is the key to the Government's true purpose in introducing the Bill. The existing legislation guarantees meals and rest breaks, annual holidays and Sundays off. It prevents unreasonable periods of continuous employment and overtime and places healthy restrictions on the hours that are worked by women and on the amount of night work that they may do. I underline the word "healthy".

Mr. Forth: Is the hon. Lady able to tell the House whether the Opposition have any real interest in equality, or whether they have any other idea in mind as to the treatment of men and women? It seems to me that the hon. Lady is much more interested in replacing one kind of discrimination with another instead of wanting true equality, to which I and, and I am sure, my right hon. and hon. Friends, are genuinely committed.

Ms. Richardson: I have yet to see any semblance of commitment by Conservative Members to the principle of equality. I refer to those Conservative Members who sit mainly below the Gangway. In the face of pressure, the Government are not introducing genuine equality——

Mr. Weetch: They are levelling down.

Ms. Richardson: My hon. Friend is right. They are levelling down all the way.
The existing legislation guarantees some semblance of decency that ought to be extended to men. Instead of levelling everybody down arid saying that their conditions of work should be rotten, the decent conditions that have been brought about by these restrictions should be extended to men. I would not oppose taking a rational look at the protective legislation. Valuable protection is provided against exploitation by unscrupulous employers, but it is dismissed by the Government and certain Conservative Members as outmoded and discriminatory.
The Opposition ask for whom these regulations have become outmoded. Why should workers no longer have the right, by law, to refuse to be pressurised into doing double-day shifts and night work? They will have no right to refuse starting times before 7 o'clock in the morning or finishing times later than 9 o'clock at night, or to refuse spells of work lasting more than 4½ hours without a break, or overtime in excess of 54 hours a week.
The Paymaster General referred to some of the points that I have just made, but he did so in what I thought was a slightly caustic and derisive manner, as though we should not really have to bother about them. Obviously he does not want there to be protection of this kind. However, any Government should try to build upon the experience of the working of this legislation and try to improve it so that it covers everybody.
Clause 4 will affect all the firms that were covered by the previous legislation. They include organisations that do not provide the facilities that hon. Members expect to be provided for them when they are working unsocial hours. At certain times of the year we work very unsocial hours and we grumble about them. Although we may think that they are inadequate, some facilities are provided for us. I have been told that there are 30 catering points in this building. They are designed to serve the needs not only of Members of Parliament but of the staff who have to service Members of Parliament. We grumble and think that our conditions should be improved, yet we are denying even that right to women outside Parliament.

Mr. Richard Holt: While she is discussing conditions in the House of Commons, will the hon. Lady say whether she is in favour of positive discrimination and of eliminating those rooms that are for ladies only? I should not wish that to happen.

Ms. Richardson: When I first became a Member of Parliament in 1974 I walked down the corridors and came across door after door that was marked "Members Only".


I thought to myself, "Ah, I am a Member," walked in and found that it was a gentleman's lavatory. If there are three doors that are marked "Ladies Only", why not? I wish that there were better facilities for female staff. Most of them have to walk a very long way indeed to find a toilet. Hon. Members are protected to a certain extent, but if this clause is passed there will be no protection for those outside Parliament. We must also ask ourselves, discriminatory against whom? The answer must be obvious to everyone.
The Government have turned their back on the logical course for a Government who genuinely wish to overcome the apparent inequality because a responsible, caring Government would have sought to draw up legislation that equally and fairly protects the health, safety and welfare of women and men at work.
Existing statutory minima provide an essential safety net for workers in non-unionised workplaces, the very area where women tend to predominate in the work force. The existing requirement on employers to apply to the inspectorate for annual exemption has provided an important negotiating platform to obtain compensatory environmental and financial improvements for all the workers affected.
Perhaps this provides an example of what the Government mean when they talk about lifting unnecessary burdens or lowering the barriers from employers. We believe that the abolition of such protection without statutory provision for a transitional period, which would have been provided in clause 3, and without statutory provision for equal protection for women and men, is a serious regressive step, especially in the current economic climate of mass unemployment and increasing poverty coupled with the general attacks upon employment and trade union rights that the Government have actively promoted.
The Bill furthers a course that has as a priority objective the creation of an unprotected, unorganised, insecure work force that is open to equal exploitation in the sweatshops and the so-called entrepreneurial businesses that this Government promote in the hope that they will fill the vacuum that they have created in destroying our manufacturing industry by pursuing laissez-faire dogma. Clause 5 provides the last plank in the Government's equal exploitation platform.
The Paymaster General gave a witty reminiscence of his time in the baking industry between student days and work. That was a very long time ago, and he was in a rather different situation in that he did not expect to work in that industry for the whole of his life.

Mr. Evans: He was there only two months.

Ms. Richardson: The bakers themselves do not want these restrictions to be removed. As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North well knows, bakers already work the longest hours of any group in the industrial sector.
The Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954 was implemented after decades of conflict and dispute in the baking industry. The Equal Opportunities Commission and the bakers' union have both opposed the repeal and have called for the Act to be extended to women. We do no more at this stage than call upon the Government to follow their advice.
Before concluding, I wish to refer in passing to two or three points that the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned as additions that he will introduce to the Bill. I cannot think why they were not included when the Bill was printed for the House of Lords. It would have been interesting to have the benefit of their debates upon these quite difficult points that the Government will bring forward.
First, we support the idea of equal treatment in retirement, which has great benefits for women who want to go on working and with respect to equalisation for men. I believe that both that and the decade for retirement has to be seen in the context of a consideration of the whole question of pensions. I know that some hon. Members say that retirement has nothing to do with pensions, but that is how people outside see it. They want to know that the pension for women at 60 is preserved. Men have been agitating for a long time—I know that it is costly—for their pension age to be brought down to 60. I understand that this is not something one can do in a flash.
In order to deal rationally with the question of retirement the Government must consult—indeed, they probably have already done so or will do so — the Department of Health and Social Security about pensions provision and ensure that as a result of the differences there are no discrepancies and dilemmas.
I am opposed to the removal of single-sex training courses. I did not even guess that the Paymaster General might be going to do that—or did I get this wrong?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We are all in favour of single-sex training courses that comply with the terms of the Act providing training, usually exclusively, for women in occupations where there is a need to increase the supply. The only proposal that we make here is to remove the requirement for each one to be designated by the Secretary of State for Employment. It was intended as a protection against abuse, but it is now quite unnecessary paperwork. The legislation will make it easier to have courses designated as single-sex courses in suitable places. They will still have to comply with the legislation.

Ms. Richardson: I am grateful and relieved that that is so. We shall, of course, consider this when the right hon. and learned Gentleman brings forward the legislation.
May I remind the House that when the Sex Discrimination Bill was introduced in another place Lord Young described the existing legislation as restricting working women's employment opportunities. It is our view that the Bill will not improve women's employment opportunities at all and that it was never intended so to do. Indeed, it is our view that the end result of clauses 4 and 5—particularly without the protection of clause 3—and of clauses 7 and 8 will be to force many women out of the workplace while many who remain will increasingly face serious domestic difficulties.
In the recent debate on the Shops Bill, Opposition Members and some Conservative Members showed that they understood the special significance of that legislation for women. I think that the effect on women was a powerful factor in the decision to throw out the Shops Bill. If the Government truly intended to provide for any improvement in women's access to employment, they would be laying a statutory duty upon local authorities to provide child care facilities, as the next Labour


Government will do; and real community care for disabled or elderly dependants, as the next Labour Government will do; and provide the resources for local authorities to meet those statutory requirements. They would be encouraging affordable improved public transport with higher staffing levels to ensure safe, secure travel, especially at night, instead of hiving off bus routes and starving the public sector of funds.
If the Government had a real commitment to equality, they would be tackling all these things to make it easier to go out to work and in some senses to look to the removal of the protective legislation. Instead, against the background of mass unemployment, increased poverty and a decaying infrastructure that this Government have created, their proposals will lead to further inequality and less freedom of choice for women. They will increase the already too prevalent attitude and reality that women alone should carry the burdens of unpaid domestic work, caring and rearing and paid employment while the state and employers withdraw from any responsibility to provide the support services that are required.
For many, the lack of protection and the burden created by the lack of support services will in the long run prove unbearable. I call on my right hon. and hon. Friends and on any other Members of the House who feel able to do so to support the Opposition amendment.

Mrs. Elizabeth Shields: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech.
I should like first to pay tribute to the former hon. Member for Ryedale, the late Mr. John Spence. He was a modest, conscientious and well-known constituency Member. His sudden death came as a great shock to us all. I met him on several civic occasions, when he was unfailingly pleasant and courteous. He will be greatly missed in the constituency and I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in extending deepest sympathy to his wife and family. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
A fortnight ago the electorate of Ryedale bestowed on me the great honour of representing them here. For my part I have promised to do my utmost for all my constituents and to ensure that their major problems, which derive directly or indirectly from Government policies, are raised in Parliament.
This Mother of Parliaments has seen many fine sons of all shades of political opinion grace this hallowed Chamber, not least, of course, those who have sat on the Liberal Benches. But the number of her daughters is far too few for the continuing health of the nation. A balance between the sexes is both desirable and necessary. I trust that in the not-too-distant future there will be a greater representation on all Benches of the House of the nationwide majority. I take special pride in being the first Liberal lady Member elected since 1951 and only the fifth in the history of my party, the last being the daughter of David Lloyd George. I believe that some of the values and sensitivity that women can bring to public life are unfortunately absent from politics today.
By tradition new Members may say something about their own constituencies. Ryedale, stretching 60 miles from the market town of Easingwold in the west to Filey on the coast in the east, and 50 miles from the northern suburbs of York to the breathtaking beauty of our Yorkshire moors and dales, is one of the largest

constituencies in England. However, many people, including members of the press, have found Ryedale something of an enigma because there is no specific town or village of that name, although we have a river Rye. Ryedale's exact geographical location has therefore caused not a little puzzlement to the many interested parties who, for one reason or another, found it compelling to visit us in recent weeks. I should like to clear up one misconception: Ryedale, like Wensleydale, is a very attractive tourist area of north Yorkshire, but unlike Wensleydale, Ryedale is not a variety of cheese.
Ryedale's greatest asset is its people who, with their genuine, innate warmth and friendliness, combined with the straightforward, outspoken way of calling a spade a spade, make this part of north Yorkshire the best place in which to live or take a holiday. Beautiful it certainly is, but many people of all ages throughout Ryedale have a housing problem. The Government's right-to-buy legislation has enabled council tenants in all three districts within the constituency to purchase their property, a measure with which I agree.
However, Ryedale district council has a statutory responsibility to provide rented accommodation for specific groups of people. More than 2,000 are at present on the waiting list, of whom some 900 are in real need. Therefore, when housing stock is being sold off there is a need for new build to cope with the demand. The embargo on the spending of the district's own capital receipts—except for one fifth—hits unnecessarily hard at a council one of whose priorities is to provide decent, adequate housing for the elderly and indigent.
Our rural communities will also suffer from the results of the Transport Act 1985 on bus services, in that village routes through Sheriff Hutton and Foston, Coxwold, Wass, Byland, Duggleby and the Barughs have not been tendered for. These sound rather quaint but the quaintness of the names belies the fact that real people live there. Even the main service from York through Malton to the coast will be severely curtailed in the evenings and on Sundays. I hope that before October, when the Act comes into force, more routes will be registered and the anticipated competition for less popular areas will materialise, but even the subsidies to be provided by the North Yorkshire county council will have disappeared by 1990. Many villages could then be totally cut off.
I should like to draw attention to the fact that great concern is being expressed by residents at Filey, where the threatened removal of the local coastguard next year is causing considerable alarm. The population of Filey and its hinterland is increased many times to about 100,000 during the summer months as tourists flock into this popular resort. The great bay of Filey, eight miles round, is watched over by a special lookout at the coastguard station. As soon as any swimmer, or a boat or any of its occupants is in difficulty, takes very little time to go to the rescue.
But if, as has been suggested, Filey's deceptively beautiful bay is deprived of its watchman, and the responsibility for the safety of the many children and adults who use it is delegated to Scarborough and Bridlington, each with its own stretch of coastline, I shall share with the people of Filey the fear of many tragic consequences. I feel sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially those whose constituencies include part of our coastline or its innumerable islands situated offshore, will sympathise in this matter, which is


not political, but a question of human safety, and one in which monetary considerations must not be the overriding factor.
But many people in my constituency are really worried —not so much for themselves and the present as for their children and their future. Ryedale has extensive rural areas with some 200 village communities, many of which support a local school. Sadly, several of these first-class village schools, such as Ganton, Reighton with Speeton and Flaxton, are under threat of closure. This is due to cuts in staff by 0·4 or 0·6 of a teacher, which effectively leaves the head teacher as the only responsible adult on the premises for two or even three days a week. Apart from the obvious safety risks, dedicated, well-qualified and trained primary teachers are thus being deprived of employment. This is a waste of a human resource—the most important resource that any country can have.
As an educationist, I obviously have a special interest in all aspects of the system. The confusion over the introduction of the GCSE examination, the enforced early retirement of university teachers, the reduction by 20 per cent. in the real value of student grants since 1979 and the generally low ebb at which morale in the teaching profession is standing, show that a major reassessment of education policies is urgently required. Although a new Minister has now been appointed—I wish him well and hope that one of his priorities will be the GCSE—I remind hon. Members that it was a Liberal Government who introduced free education in 1870. It may take another Liberal Government to restore morale in the primary and secondary sectors and maintain standards in further and higher education.
The Sex Discrimination Bill which is the subject of today's debate aims to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 so that it comes into line with the European Community directives on the equal treatment of men and women. I hope that equality of opportunity will, as a result of the Bill, enable more women in the teaching profession to reach positions of seniority as deputies or heads of school. Too often, their inability to gain success in that way is not due to lack of qualifications, training, or experience, but simply to the fact of their sex.
The Equal Opportunities Commission has argued that conditions of work should be good for men and women. The protection that has been afforded to men in the baking industry through the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954 should now be afforded to women. Good conditions for all should be the objective. The Labour party amendment is addressed to that point, but my hon. Friends and I believe that it does not go far enough. In spite of the Bill's inadequacies in that respect, we believe that it is a useful measure. We intend to vote for it tonight and I hope to have the chance to amend the Bill in Committee.
On 8 May, the people of Ryedale gave me the opportunity to become their voice in Parliament. Today, I have had the opportunity to make my first contribution. I thank the House for its attention and look forward to playing an active part in the debates that lie before us.

Mr. Richard Holt: We have just heard an excellent maiden speech,. I think that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mrs. Shields) began her speech well by paying tribute to our late colleague. We all knew Mr. John

Spence and liked him very much, and I think that his place in this House is now temporarily adorned by the hon. Lady.
In a sense, I am also making a maiden speech. I am following a maiden speech and I have not done that before. I am also speaking in a debate on sex discrimination and I have definitely not done that before. Yesterday, I desperately wanted to speak in the debate on shipbuilding and was allocated four minutes in which to speak. Today, when I did not want to speak on sex discrimination, I have been allocated the rest of the evening. There must be a reason for that.

Mr. Evans: Does that not speak volumes for the Tory party?

Mr. Holt: The hon. Gentleman's intervention shows one of the fundamental differences between Conservative Members and Labour Members. Labour Members have no sense of humour and no sense of occasion. On an issue such as this, the hon. Gentleman is trying to bring in some petty party point.
There is a more serious reason why I am speaking in this debate. For many years I have worked in personnel in factories. More specifically, in connection with clause 5, I am married to the baker's daughter. In that context, I have a little more experience than my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General, who introduced the Bill.
The underlying principle of the Bill is the Government's philosophy that we must seek equality. I found it destroying to listen to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) speaking from the Opposition Front Bench—not for equality but for discrimination in favour of ladies. That is the absolute negation of what the European Community has wanted, what the hon. Member for Ryedale said, and what the Government have set out to achieve.
In all my years in personnel, I have found it strange when writing contracts of employment, when engaging people and dealing with such matters in factories where people did identical jobs—usually the ladies were better than the men—that we had to have legislation enshrined in the contracts in such a way as to destroy job opportunities and not to create them. Today we must all try, whatever our political stance, to improve job prospects and opportunities for those who are unfortunately unemployed.
It is never easy for the Opposition to look across at the Government Benches and point a finger at the Tory party when it comes to sex discrimination. We have a lady Prime Minister.

Mr. Evans: That is the problem.

Mr. Holt: If the hon. Gentleman wants to make an intelligent contribution to the debate, I will happily give way to him. However, if he wants to continue shouting from a sedentary position, I would prevail upon you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to tell him to shut up.
Certain clauses in the Bill will be debated in Committee. I am happy to say that I will not be on the Committee because I have done my porridge for this year, last year, and the year before. However, I would like to consider the part that relates to the protection that is supposed to be enshrined in current legislation. All that protection is discriminatory. It is a change to refer to the


hon. Member for Barking as "the hon. Lady opposite speaking for the Labour party" as distinct from "the hon. Lady opposite" which would automatically have meant that she was speaking for the Labour party. We must now make the distinction, albeit for a short period, and we will enjoy making that distinction——

Mr. David Penhaligon: I fancy my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale's chances better than the hon. Gentleman's. She is 5:4 on.

Mr. Holt: The hon. Gentleman should not tempt me.
Restrictions on hours and starting and finishing times do not apply to 7·5 million working women in this country. Those women can drive buses, serve all night on their own and lonely in a hospital ward or they can spend all night entertaining people in strip shows. However, they cannot work on a Saturday or a Sunday in a factory legitimately producing manufactured goods so that we can sell those goods and improve job prospects. It is time that that arcane law was thrown out; the reform is long overdue. It is strange that the Labour party should want to oppose that. I was pleased to hear that the Liberal party will support the Bill in the Lobby this evening. That shows that the Labour party is out of touch with the realities of the workplace and the work force when it comes to creating job opportunities and removing this kind of petty restriction which has existed for far too long.
To revert to my personal experiences in the baking trade, I first met my wife shortly after her father had died leaving the family business to his widow. She was quite able to go into the bakery at all hours of the day and night as the proprietor, unprotected by unnecessary legislation, to work and make bread, to knead the dough. But she could not have employed another lady to share her labours instead of other men, because she would have been restricted by unnecessary and outmoded legislation. We should remember that it is not rare for a lady suddenly to find herself at the head of a business on the death of her husband.
However. the Labour party wants to perpetuate that legislation. Indeed, it wants to extend it so that the baking hours even now worked by men would be curtailed so that we would not have that lovely home-made fresh bread that comes only from the small baker, not the large multiples. If we stick with the family baker, we shall have our fresh bread, but we should help by voting for the Bill this evening. This is the sort of positive discrimination that we want — positive decisions to remove ridiculous old-fashioned out-dated legislation.
I shall not speak all night, despite the encouragement from the Government Front Bench and colleagues elsewhere. Like the hon. Member for Ryedale, I too represent a constituency in that part of the world. My constituency is 20 miles north of Ryedale in the north Yorkshire moors, and it is a beautiful part of the country. I look forward to seeing the hon. Member for Ryedale, here during the period that she graces us. That time will, I am sure, be like the life of a butterfly —short and beautiful.
However, one of the things that I can guarantee is that the hon. Lady will be in a different position from many of us. Whereas we shall labour for hours and hope to be called, she will shortly be a Front Bench spokesman for something because that is the way the portfolios go round in the Liberal party. If she is a Front Bench spokesman for

the ladies, I hope that she will continue to support the Government in this type of legislation, making the ladies' lot in the world better.

Mr. Ken Weetch: I cannot emulate the entertainment value of the speech by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), which I followed carefully.
The Bill is a mess. Three of its clauses are at variance with the rest. There are conflicts of principle. A few minutes ago the Paymaster General announced that the Bill will undergo major surgery in Committee. It will undergo more than major surgery, because three of the clauses will disappear. That will be a massacre. Therefore, the Bill is completely unsatisfactory in its conception.
The Bill has its roots in the fact that the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 falls short of meeting European obligations in a number of respects. That is particularly so with regard to access to employment, vocational training, promotion and working conditions.
The House should welcome parts of the Bill 'while expressing some sharp reservations about the consequences of some parts for women workers. Even without the three clauses that the Government intend to remove, we still have two Bills because there are two distinct principles. One is to conform with the European directive which was based on a court case brought by the Commission, and the second is to embrace regulation more intensively in some areas of industrial working conditions.
We are debating whether we can agree in principle with the basic objects of the legislation as put by the Government. I agree with some of the Government's basic aims, but they will not be achieved by the Bill.
I welcome the Government's acceptance of the EC ruling that the Sex Discrimination Act should he strengthened so that equal opportunities are promoted between men and women. Labour Members would certainly support that. Secondly, I can sympathise with any move to remove outdated legislative burdens which decrease efficiency and competitiveness. Those are two sound objectives.
However, I regret that the Government accepted the EEC ruling with bad grace. If one reads carefully the proceedings of the debate in the other place on the Bill, one sees that the Government embraced the EEC ruling with some reluctance. In fact, Lord Young, in arguing his case in the other place, said categorically that he was accepting it because he had to, not because he had any great agreement with the principle.
It is disappointing to learn that the Government are only accepting the EEC ruling in extending the 1975 Act to small firms, private households, partnerships and collective agreements. We are disappointed that the Government are doing that with some reluctance. One can sum up the Government's position in a sentence. They are grasping the legal obligation to the EEC and its framework, but they are in no way embracing the spirit in which the reform has been proposed.
I listened carefully to the Paymaster General. He said, first, that there is some confused thinking among Opposition Members. I would say to him that there is a lot of confused thinking behind the Bill.
It is possible to take three approaches. It is possible to scrap all regulations so that everybody is made equal in that nobody is protected. The second approach, the one


traditionally made by the Factory Acts in Britain, is to consider certain special categories of people such as women and children, make regulations to protect them, and then level up the regulations so that they protect men as well. The third approach, which is broadly the one that I would favour, is to say that there are special areas of employment in Britain where women need protection. I have no hesitation in saying that.
Therefore, I disagree to some extent with the Equal Opportunities Commission's argument that deregulation would be a good way to make everybody equal. The Equal Opportunities Commission's report of 1979 argued that there should be deregulation but that there should be a code of practice as a safety net so that when the Bill became law its disadvantages would be limited.
The Bill is unsatisfactory. It involves some complex thinking. Industrial and factory legislation and conditions of work have always been a complex legislative area. I have substantial reservations about the Bill and those reservations are shared by the TUC and by unions such as the Confederation of Health Service Employees. Some 80 per cent. of the members of that union are female and view the Bill with critical interest. My reservations are about clauses 4, 5 and 6 because they deal specifically with removing restrictions on the number of hours that women can work in certain industries, especially the baking industry. Clause 4 would allow women in factories to be freely employed at night, on Sundays, on shift work, and between overtime starting and finishing times. The clause would also remove restrictions on the hours, including hours at night, during which women may work in mines and quarries.
Let us come to the brass tacks of the argument. One either believes that there should be protection for women in certain industries such as mines or quarries and in industries where conditions are difficult and pay is low, or one does not. I commend the Government for their honesty. They say there should not be protection and that is because they are proposing to deregulate and saying that that is the path to equality. There is a substantial disadvantage in that approach. I take the traditional view of factory legislation. Certain categories of people should be protected by legislation and when one sets up a demolition exercise to sweep a lot of it away, one will have attendant disadvantages.

Mr. Holt: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell us how many members of COHSE work in factories that are covered by current legislation?

Mr. Weetch: The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) must take a narrow view of people's interests. There is no reason why people in one occupation cannot have sympathy for people in another. That is a sympathetic view of life, but obviously the hon. Gentleman does not hold such a view. It is commendable that people who work in the public sector have some thought for people who work in more difficult industries in which people have to labour for long hours and low pay. There ought to be more sympathetic consideration between occupational groups.
We must be careful before we play fast and loose with the legislative protection that women have at work. Factory legislation has taken a long time to accumulate and immense efforts by all sorts of social groups and the trade union movement have gone into it. I am doubtful about the

basic proposition advanced by the Government. I note the argument used by Lord Young in the other place and it brings me to my second point. I shall paraphrase what the noble Lord said:
This Bill will mean that women will have access to often higher paid nightwork, shift jobs and better promotion prospects. All these things may widen women's job marketability, and make them available for a wider range of work.
I will believe that when I see it.

Mr. Timothy Wood: A number of women in my constituency have written to me requesting precisely this change. They object to the present restraints and want to see the change in this Bill enacted.

Mr. Weetch: One has to set one person's experience against the experience of another. I have had letters expressing the opposite view. I ask the hon. Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood): has there been any systematic study in Britain to show that if this legislation is passed women could expect to have a significantly better deal because of wider market opportunities? The argument underlying the Bill says that there are lots of opportunities for women and that women are waiting in the wings and will better themselves as a result of this legislation. That argument has not been subjected to systematic study. I certainly know of no research body that has reached that conclusion. It may well be that things will alter at the margin here and there, but in the wider sense the Bill is not a significant step.
How convincing is this talk of wider scope which will occur in practice and give women more opportunities for jobs, higher wages and better conditions? I am advised by people who have a lot of experience in industries which I shall presently name and which would be altered in a substantial way by this legislation, that the case is not proven. There are few good jobs restricted to men for which women are likely to be substituted if this legislation goes through and if protective legislation is abandoned. That is because the industries to which much of the discussion has been directed are in textiles and baking and in other industries where wages are low and where the protection given to women is likely to be put into total jeopardy because of deregulation.
Clauses 4. 5 and 6 are not necessarily in the Bill to make it comply with European directives. That is quite a separate principle. We are talking about the principle of deregulation as opposed to the principle that arises from compliance with the European Court case and the directive. They are totally separate things and need to be separately argued. The Government are set on a course of quite widespread and wholesale deregulation, even though there is no practical value in that. They are motivated purely by ideological considerations and about arguing for its own sake. That is not an allegation: it is a substantive fact.
If we are not careful, the legislation that protects certain vulnerable groups will go the same way as wages councils and other instruments of welfare. This notion of the Government stems from unregulated free enterprise rather than from any notion of social advance. That is why there is a substantial set of arguments against this legislation. An unjustified parallel has been drawn between night work in public services and night work in factories. In the public services, nights are already worked by women, but to transfer that principle and say that it applies to factories and mines and quarries as well, does not stand up in a


practical sense. Factory legislation and the whole notion of industrial welfare has been built up case by case. That is why I firmly believe that clause 3 should remain.
It is all very well for the Paymaster General to stand at the Dispatch Box and read out some of the complications of the legislation. Welfare legislation across the board is complicated because it has grown up organically to meet special considerations. There is no escaping that. To sweep it all away and say that it is simpler to do that, and therefore much better, is an argument which will not stand up.
Factory work is different. It is often associated with working on machinery and being constantly vigilant to avoid industrial injury. There is a great danger that women will be open to risks arising from a combination of a lack of regulation of the hours at the place of work, particularly at night.
I do not shrink from saying that I take the traditional view of factory and industrial legislation. It has been built up over a long period, has been hammered out by collective bargaining, and put into legislation because people have considered that to be the constructive, detailed way forward. We should think long and hard before we put that legislation under the hammer in the cause of deregulation.
I do not wish to say much more because there is a danger of straying into Committee-type material. The principle of large parts of the Bill is that in order to give women greater opportunities and to put them on all fours with men, it is necessary to make inroads into industrial welfare legislation. The two things do not go together. It is a logical fallacy. One can have one without the other. For that reason the legislation is misconceived in principle. It is misleading because no more jobs will be available in areas where women traditionally have not been able to compete, and conditions for women at work will worsen in terms of health and safety.
If I am selected to serve on the Committee I shall resist strongly the removal of clause 3, which is the traditional approach to factory welfare legislation, which we should retain. The matter was debated at great length in the other place. It was an interesting debate and some perceptive points were made. The clause was won on a hard-fought amendment, and we shall see a great deal of hard debate in Committee. I hope that the Government's attempts will be resisted, and that they fail. I shall certainly be part of the opposition.
The Opposition's amendment provides the correct approach. We welcome certain aspects of the Bill, and reject others because we believe that they are wrong in principle. But that must be argued in Committee. At this stage the argument is essentially between substantial deregulation and saving what beneficial general factory legislation we can. The Opposition are right. The Government are seeking the lowest common denominator, whereas the Opposition are seeking the highest common factor in industrial welfare. I believe that we shall have much support in the country.

Mr. David Ashby: I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mrs. Shields) on an excellent maiden speech. It is strange that during this debate she should remind us that she is the first lady hon. Member on the Liberal Benches since 1951, and only the fifth or sixth in the history of the Liberal

party. I feel sure that she will persuade her party that there should be a little less discrimination and a few more candidates of her sex. That is an act of positive discrimination that one expects from time to time in politics.
The hon. Lady has said that she comes from a beautiful area, which I know, and that it has a coastline. As I represent an area which includes Ashby-de-la-Zouch, which is the furthest point from the sea in whichever direction one goes, I envy her. I certainly enjoy the coast, and especially boating. She mentioned lifeboats and having once been rescued by a lifeboat I know how valuable and important that service is. She said that the Liberal party hoped to restore teachers' morale. but as someone who is in education, I can assure her that Conservative Members do not intend to wait to the year 2086 for that. We look for a restoration of teachers' morale in the near future.
As is so often the case, I follow the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch). When I refer to him as an hon. Gentleman it has great meaning because he is in every way a gentleman. He does not deny that his approach to the Bill is the old-fashioned approach of a gentleman towards a lady. He feels that women need the protection of legislation, and speaks of protection for women. But I often wonder whether he is talking of protection from women. He rather reminds me of the story, which we all know, of the boy scout and the blind lady. The boy scout insists on leading her across a road, despite her wish not to cross the road but to continue on her way. I often wonder whether that is not the case with the protectionists' approach to legislation, and whether in this day and age women want that protection.
The Conservative party and I believe that women feel that they do not require the protection that was there formerly. Heaven forbid that we shall see women down the mines and in the quarries. I know that in my constituency, which includes many mines, the local National Union of Mineworkers and possibly the Union of Democratic Mineworkers would throw up their hands in horror at a woman at the pit face. I know that last century they used to work there and that many of us would dislike it, but at the end of the day that would be the choice.
Some women enjoy the sort of work that was formerly very much the province of men—for example, repairing cars. The numbers of girls who are taking courses in engineering and car repairs is amazing. One sees them covered in grease as only young men would have been previously. One sees that they enjoy every minute of it and have a thorough knowledge of the engines.
It is a changing world, and one to which we must accommodate ourselves. I am anxious to get used to the changing world. I have a 17-year-old daughter. She, like many other young women, wants to get somewhere in life and achieve something. They do not want only to be wives. I used the wrong phrase; to be a wife is honourable, decent and nice. I am not saying that to be a wife and mother is in any way a lesser job. It is as major a job as any other, but many women do not wish to go down only that path. That is their choice. Educational opportunities are open to them now that were not available previously, and they wish to take full advantage of them.
I do not know whether I welcome the legislation, because I am never happy with legislation that forces people to change their views and attitudes—we have had a series of such Bills over the years and it is a great


pity that they have been necessary. I recognise that such Bills resulted in changes being made, but I wonder whether they created change or followed change. Many of the changes occurred before the legislation. I imagine that a great many women work the sort of hours that the Bill is proposing, but no complaint has been made. They are ahead of the legislation.
As a free trader, I believe in a meritocracy. It is never right or proper to discriminate on any ground whether it be race, sex or colour. Those barriers have been broken down and will continue to be broken down because of the great social changes that have taken place in Britain, especially since the war. It is now accepted that a woman has a right to work equal to her husband's.
Much home life is shared jointly between husbands and wives. I shall not name the hon. Members who have working wives. I telephone them and ask them what they are doing and they say, "I am looking after the baby. This is my bisque night, my night off. My wife is doing something else." The changes have already taken place. To some extent some legislation shuts the stable door after the horse has bolted.
The problem with discrimination is that it is difficult to prove. It is often subtle and, in evidential terms, negligible. One cannot put one's finger on it or demonstrate it. It is not written down in black and white. It is subtle and difficult to deal with. I am always worried about passing legislation that is unenforceable. I welcome the legislation because the freeing of the restrictions would free much of what is unenforceable.

Ms. Richardson: The hon. Gentleman said that some of the discrimination was so subtle that he could not put his finger on it, but some of it is very unsubtle, such as the fact that three quarters of women work for just over two thirds of man's pay. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is an unsubtle way of confirming women in their dependent position?

Mr. Ashby: I repeat that I believe in a meritocracy. That answers the question of the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), because it shows that I agree with her. I believe in equal work for equal pay. I am by profession a lawyer. There are many women members of the Bar, and there has been no discrimination since women came to the Bar, although obviously it existed previously in terms of equal pay for equal value and equal work. The fee for defending someone is set; whether one is a man or a woman, one gets that fee. I have worked for a considerable time in a profession that is completely undiscriminatory in that sense. It has been like that since I had the honour to be called to the Bar about 23 years ago.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that the pay for male and female barristers is in balance owes nothing at all to any statutory obligation on the part of clients to pay the same to a male as to a female, but owes everything to the excellence of the people concerned? It is not an obligation imposed by law, but something that emerges by concensus.

Mr. Ashby: It goes further than that. It owes itself to the excellence of the clerk who negotiates the best fee for his barrister, whether a man or a woman. I agree that we have never required legislation to have equality at the Bar,

and it is much better that it should be so. The changes that are taking place, the social and economic shifts and the other ordinary things that have happened have had a greater effect and will ultimately provide greater and total equality between the sexes at the workplace.
In other professions, too, no legislation has been required to give complete equality. In most Government Departments, there has been no real need for specific legislation to provide equality. There is equality in the medical profession, and no legislation was needed to provide it.
The area in which most discrimination arises is the most difficult for which to legislate. That worries me because it is totally wrong; indeed, it is monstrous. That discrimination occurs in small and medium-sized businesses. Often, larger businesses are ready and willing to take on women. In smaller and medium-sized businesses, one seldom finds female production managers, sales managers, sales directors or production directors. In such businesses, women are relegated to the job of secretary, or to the boring, repetitious jobs at the machine end, doing one process after another at a machine. I do not suggest that such jobs are not necessary and vital. Indeed, some women work in areas where decisions are made, and can show their full value.
I accept that women are different. Thank goodness that I can discriminate between men and women. Women have a special place. There are some things that women do much better than men. People say that women are often more perceptive than men. Women, in a subtle way, can often tell better than men whether someone is telling the truth. In business, there are areas where women are sometimes better than men.
Women have something valuable to give to medium and smaller-size businesses. Some women have a great deal of business acumen and they have succeeded at business management schools and universities. When they reach the next stage, getting a job, they often turn to large businesses. I would like to see far more women in small businesses? It is an area where they could give much. An increased number of women university graduates in business studies would lead to a better quality of managerial staff. Much of the country's wealth can be made in small businesses and they would profit from the better managerial quality that women offer.

Mr. Dorrell: Does my hon. Friend also agree that one of the interesting phenomena of the last few years is that there has not only been a big expansion in the small business sector but a willingness on the part of women to set up their own small businesses? Women's participation in the small business sector is one of the interesting new social phenomena of the past few years.

Mr. Ashby: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that. He is absolutely right. The problem is that, so often, women feel that they have to set up their own businesses to give full expression to their abilities. That is sad because there is a great place for women in small businesses. I do not mean the smallest of businesses but those which employ between 200 or 400 employees. Often, it is only the large businesses which have the courage and perspicacity to employ women of calibre and ability in managerial positions.
When we consider schools we appreciate the problems and subtle discriminations that occur. We have often said


that the quality of school leavers, especially males, is bad, but what is happening in our schools is not understood. A few years ago the male school leaver, who did not have great managerial ability and who did not aspire to a managerial position, would leave and take a job in a factory or another labouring job. Now, the male school leaver aspires towards managerial jobs even though he may not have the ability for such a job. The boys stay on longer and look for a better job. I do not blame them for doing so but they often look for a job which is beyond their ability.
Girls tend to leave school at a younger age than boys and take the jobs that the young men would have taken some years ago. That is subtle discrimination. Employers may say that they get young men of 19 coming from school, who cannot read or write properly. The girls come to the employers at the age of 16 or 17 and they can read and write and are very bright indeed. The girls are leaving school earlier than boys yet they may have a good deal of ability and could stay on for higher education and achieve more.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that people leave school unable to read or write has nothing to do with sex discrimination? It depends on the money which is put into their educational facilities. If the money is not put in, the pupils do not get the right educational opportunities.

Mr. Ashby: No, I do not agree. Thank goodness, we are all individuals and everyone is different. One could pour millions of pounds into the education of some individuals but they would never read or write properly because they do not want to. Such people do not aspire to managerial work but they are given hopes beyond their abilities and expectations. That is not a fair reflection on the teachers. Many teachers spend a great deal of time trying to get people to read and write but at the end of the day they have no success.
A careers master told me that one out of every 10 young school leavers cannot be placed in a job. He said that one could pick that person out at the age of 12 or 13. Such children are given a great deal of care. At the end of the day, they do not wish to stay at school, they are not interested in work and they leave unable to read or write, despite the efforts of teachers. Employers are not terribly happy to have such people and they would positively discriminate in favour of the better educated person.
It would be an unfair reflection on the excellent school in my constituency to suggest that the staff were bad teachers to allow that one person to go through school and to leave without being able to read or write adequately. The teachers have tried all they can but they have not been successful.

Mrs. Shields: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I have come recently from the teaching profession and I know that practically no child leaves the school in which I was teaching without being able to read or write, and that applies to boys as well as girls.
We need teachers to cope with those who are slower learners. We need to have special remedial departments. In recent years, with falling rolls, the school numbers have been cut but, instead of giving the schools the opportunity to have smaller classes and to give more attention to the individual child, they have been faced with staff cuts. Over the past three years at my school, five members of

staff have had to go. If those staff had been retained those who are slower learners would have had more attention and would have been properly looked after. It is a great shame that, 20 years ago, the Conservatives were encouraging married women to take a two-year course to go into teaching so that there could be smaller classes but now that we have smaller classes they say we must get rid of the teachers.

Mr. Ashby: I do not know what the special situation is with regard to the hon. Lady's education authority—[HON. MEMBERS]:"It applies to all". Since the Conservatives came to power in 1979 the average numbers in schools have consistently dropped. That suggests that the pupil-teacher ratio has dropped and that suggests that more teachers are available than before. That is a statistical fact although I accept that, as with all statistics, there are some areas to which it does not apply.
The hon. Lady said that practically no children left her school unable to read or write adequately. I noted that she said "practically", as that is my experience of the school about which I was talking.

Mrs. Shields: I am talking about one in 10 years.

Mr. Ashby: I am afraid that I come across far greater numbers than that in London, not in my constituency. We know about the special problems in the Inner London education authority and its failures. I have seen inspectors' reports which speak of its failures. That shows how badly a Labour-controlled authority can run education. I lay the blame entirely at the door of the Labour party. It has been party political and it is unable to run London's schooling properly.
I have mentioned women's hours of work and the need to free them to enable them to work the hours that they want. Many factories work flexi-hours in my constituency and others work split shifts. The latter have been of great benefit and work extremely well. The factories work day and night. The women are grateful and I have found nothing but happiness at how they are working. I recommend that system.
My right hon. and learned Friend spoke of retirement pensions and what will happen in view of the recent decision of the European Court of Justice. It is monstrously unfair that women should not be entitled to choose their retirement date in parity with men. That is a long-overdue development. I would welcome greater flexibility and parity. I am aware that that would be extremely expensive, but I hope that we shall work towards it. It will take time, but it is a goal worth aiming for.

Mr. Dorrell: I entirely agree that the signs that changes in retirement law may be written into the Bill in Committee brings into the debate something of enormous importance to all of our constituents. Would my hon. Friend like to give his views about a compulsory retirement age? The Bill is concerned with giving women greater access to work. It seems to me the principle of a compulsory retirement age, whether 60 or 65, is something that the House may wish to consider in much greater detail than it has so far.

Mr. Ashby: I agree with my hon. Friend. The principle of a compulsory retirement age is difficult. Thank goodness we did not have a compulsory retirement age in 1940. Judges now have to retire at 72, but those who


started service before the compulsory retirement age was introduced were able to go on. Lord Denning retired only recently, aged 80. He was an exceptional judge and highly regarded by all. Nobody would have wanted to suggest —even if they had dared to—that he should have retired at 75. At that age, he was still going strong. His judgments were exceptionally lucid, good and highly regarded by the profession. He is an example of why a compulsory retirement age may be bad. On the other hand, he may be exceptional.
There is a time, however, when we all have to pack up and give way to a younger man. My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) said that he spoke for only four minutes yesterday on the shipbuilding industry and had not expected to speak again today. I rather wish that I had spoken on the shipbuilding industry. Nevertheless, I am speaking here today. I feel that I have reached my compulsory retirement time and I must thank the House for listening to me with such attention.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mrs. Shields) on her maiden speech. I am sure that it was a portent of things to come. She could not have made it on a more appropriate subject than the Sex Discrimination Bill, if this Bill has anything to do with sex discrimination.
The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) is also to be congratulated on filling so many words with so few ideas. I was intrigued by the notion that the legal profession. of all professions, is free from discrimination. I wait with interest to see hordes of female High Court judges.
Discrimination against women in employment is not best looked for among the relatively privileged. The hon. Gentleman must accept that there is privilege in the legal profession. Women are represented significantly at the lower end of the market. They tend to do the low-paid jobs which are now difficult to find or have simply disappeared. In Greater Manchester, a significant proportion of women in work receive low pay. The House should address the problem of sex discrimination at the place of work and in other parts of society but it has failed to do so with this tawdry Bill.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the boy scout and the blind old lady. If the old lady is the Prime Minister and the boy scout is the Paymaster General, who has a reputation for liberalism, it is obvious that the boy scout has been unable to have any impact on the old lady in the context of the Bill. That which is good in the Bill has been forced on the Government. The Government have been goaded unwillingly into introducing changes by the powers of external courts.
Clauses 1 and 2, which have been given a cautious welcome by my right hon. and hon. Friends, are the direct result of the European courts and their clear disapproval of existing United Kingdom legislation. We have been slow in amending our law since the decisions of the courts but at least we are now putting our domestic legislation into some sort of order. A recent decision in the case of Miss Marshall gave her the right to remain at work. The decision was greeted with great pleasure by many health workers in my constituency, but it took a court decision on that issue to force the Government to change the law.
The only other good parts of the Bill are those that the Paymaster General has told us he intends to remove from it. These are the provisions that offer some protection for those who will suffer the most direct impact. The measures that the Government propose to take are those that will at best do little to remove discrimination. At worst, they will do active harm to individuals at their place of work in various industries.
There is great fear about the effect of clause 5 when the Bill is enacted. It threatens the repeal of the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act, 1954. The Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union is greatly concerned about the results of the clause when it becomes a section. It took that union about 110 years to get an Act on the statute book to protect its members and others, and in relative terms it has enjoyed the protection of an effective piece of legislation for a short time—about 30 years.
The Government pray in aid the views of two employers federations, which say that legislation is not needed and has no impact. If that is so, why remove it from the statute book? Employers have said that they do not think that there will be any major changes, so why are we getting rid of current legislation? Is it part of a legislative tidying-up process? If it is, it is hardly worth wasting the time of the House on the exercise.
Others are far more fearful of the consequences of that which the Government propose, including the bakers union. Some on the employers' side have estimated that about 2,000 jobs may be lost in baking as a result of the repeal. That is a considerable number of jobs, especially as the losses will occur in part in communities which are often hard pressed because of the loss of jobs in other industries. The hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) looks quizzical. If he does not accept my arguments, I shall be glad to send him some of the documentation which is in my possession. There is great fear about the loss of employment opportunities.
I am sure that the Paymaster General recognises that there are voices of experience in the baking industry. I concede that the two months which the right hon. and learned Gentleman spent in the industry is longer than the experience which I can claim, but perhaps he will be modest enough to concede that changes have taken place and that the industry may be somewhat different now from what it was when he was working within it. Some have been locked into it for 40 years whereas the right hon. and learned Gentleman experienced it for but two months before moving off to new and certainly more rewarding pastures.
The baking industry ranks third in the table of industries with long working hours. The hours of those employed within it are exceeded only by merchant seamen and those engaged in the road transport industry. The bakers union can quote working weeks that sometimes exceed 60 hours. We know that there are agreements which take parts of the industry from the control of the current legislation, and it is feared that the unsocial hours and conditions that existed in the industry prior to the introduction of the present legislation will return once the Bill is enacted. That fear is only right and proper. It is a valid fear that individuals and groups of employees in the baking industry will suffer harshly once the Bill is enacted.
We know that shift workers are compensated by shift premiums, which make up in part for having to work shifts as opposed to regular days. Shift working is generally an extemely unsocial activity. It disrupts lifestyles and causes


unique strains, especially to an individual's social life. There are direct effects on those who work shifts, especially when they grow older. The argument that current legislation offers real protection should not be dismissed or pooh-poohed. The Government's case has not been proven. It is said that the lifting of the so-called burden will not do any damage, but that is not an adequate reason by any stretch of the imagination for repealing legislation which is genuinely popular among those in the baking industry.
It is felt by bakers and by some employers that the 1954 Act raises the average standard and protects better employers from unfair competition from the worst. It is important in any industry to prevent the worst employers driving down the standards of the average and the good, and we have not had an adequate response from the Government to that argument.
The same arguments apply to the impact of clause 4. There is not much to recommend that which is set out within it. The great principle of the avoidance of sex discrimination has allowed the Government to slip in provisions which will have a direct impact upon young workers, and I think that even Conservative Members will accept that the young have suffered severely as a result of the Government's recent legislative changes. In various ways they have seen their working rights eroded, and there is to be a further erosion of their rights in the interests, so we are told, of the avoidance of sex discrimination.
The Equal Opportunities Commission, which was prayed in aid in another place, was constructive in its approach to the problem when it recommended an equalisation of legislative controls. It did not urge that controls should be scrapped. It would have been possible for us to consider that in another light. It is sad that the removal of sex discrimination should be used as a guise for crude attacks and an attempt to manipulate the minimal protections that apply in the baking industry and some other industries where, because of relatively weak trade unions or the absence of unions, individual employees have little protection against unscrupulous employers.
The Paymaster General told us of the Government's intention to remove clause 3. It is remarkable that a clause that was inserted in another place with the intention of strengthening the Bill — in reality, it could do little damage to it — is to be deleted, especially if the Government are sincere in their view of what the Bill will do. However, the clause is to be removed because it offends the ideological drive of the Government in their attack upon employees in their places of work. They are not prepared to give the minimal amount of time that clause 3 would provide to allow for adequate and meaningful consultations to take place.
The Minister says that he thinks that it is merely a matter of further delay. Yet the Government delayed for six years before implementing the recommendations of the EOC. They sat on the recommendations and kicked them around for six years, hoping that they would quietly go away. They were suddenly forced into action by the need to introduce legislation following some reverses in the European Court. At best, it is therefore specious for them to say that a delay of a few more months would massively damage the legislation.
I turn to single-sex training. We wait to see the wording of the regulations, but the Minister said that a marginal change was being made, which made no real impact. I am no exponent of the European Community, but the

Government refused money from the EC's social fund for single-sex training on the ground that it was discriminatory. Moreover, that happened in the not-too-distant past. We must be suspicious of any attempt to weaken the controls, and that is why I shall watch carefully to see whether the legislation gives protection that guarantees that single-sex training can be used only to enhance the rights of those who have been traditionally discriminated against on the ground of sex in certain areas of employment and training.
It is important to recognise the concept of positive discrimination. Positive discrimination should apply not only to the failure to allow for equality between the sexes but to racial discrimination and so on. Positive discrimination has a role to play in all those areas. Arty erosion of that principle through allowing single sex training to be diluted and used wrongly should be deplored.
There is nothing really to commend the Bill to us. It is of rather dubious parentage. Many of its better features will no doubt be pruned back to ensure that any beneficial aspects left in the Bill as a result of consideration in the other place are not allowed to frustrate the Government's intentions. For that reason, I shall certainly join my right hon. and hon. Friends in voting against the Bill.

Mr. Timothy Wood: I join with others in congratulating the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mrs. Shields) on her most excellent maiden speech. I was largely brought up in Nidderdale, so I, too, know the beauties of the north Yorkshire countryside. Having lived for the past 20 years in the south of England, I very much miss the grandeur of the north Yorkshire moors and the beauties of the seascape near Filey. It is a most attractive part of the world, and I envy her representing such a beautiful area.
One can sympathise with many of the principles underlying the desire for equal opportunities, but I sometimes wonder whether our legislation achieves what we have in mind. Curiously enough, I remember twice being aware of obvious sex discrimination and both times it was in favour of women. On the first occasion, I was a school governor. Although by law there should be no discrimination, by the time that I was involved in the selection process for a deputy head teacher, the only remaining application forms came from women. It was rightly thought that as there were two male deputy heads, it was appropriate that the next, at least, should be female. It was not made too public, but that discrimination occurred.
On the second occasion, I was involved in a voluntary group where the tendency was for many more males to take an interest in joining. There can be no doubt that discrimination in favour of women took place in the vetting of applications to join that group. Thus, it is sometimes advantageous to women to discriminate.
Unless we are careful, the way in which we deal with equal opportunities and sex discrimination may lead us into rather bizarre situations. I must confess that I have considerable reservations about the provisions in the Bill relating to employment in private homes. The limitations on choice for employment in private homes are far too strict. The examples given in speeches in the other place reveal the incredible difficulties that could arise. It is quite unreasonable to limit choice in that way when it conies to


employing one or two people in a private home. When the Bill is considered in detail, I hope that more thought will be given to the precise wording.
There is a case for changing the position affecting small firms, but I wonder whether the new provisions will markedly benefit women. In a small firm of two or three people, a prejudiced employer who has to employ a man or woman whom he does not wish to employ may make his life miserable until he chooses to leave. It may not be possible to afford any legislative protection against that. I am well aware that some small firms prefer to employ women. I know of some small firms doing minor electronic work that rightly or wrongly believe—far be it for me to judge—that women do the repetitive work involved more satisfactorily than their male counterparts. They may be right. I wonder whether it is sensible to impose constraints on such small firms that will be difficult to enforce in reality.
I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) on hours of work. However, I have received a petition from many women working for a large organisation in my constituency who want the restraints on hours of working to be removed because they are prejudicial to their interests and they want more freedom. I accept that that implies the possible freedom to exploit. but perhaps such exploitation is mutual. Therefore, while I have some reservations about the advantages of change, I accept the general proposition for it.
My right hon. and learned Friend said that legislation would be introduced in Committee to deal with compulsory retirement ages. That is highly desirable and I believe that it will be the most important item in the Bill. One paradox in our distinction in ages of retirement is that they were originally introduced about 40 years ago to provide protection for women. Today, women—quite reasonably in some instances — feel that it is not a protection but an inhibition of their rights and freedoms. I hope that there will be equality of treatment in both retirement ages and pensions so that men and women can retire at the appropirate age for them.
The Bill has a considerable amount to offer, and when it is amended in Committee it will have even more to offer.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: The Government have once again been forced to legislate because they have lost in the European Court. It is a habit of British Governments to lose in the European Court, and having done so they run screaming to the House, protesting all the way, to legislate to rectify all their unfair actions. They have lost over mental health, over housing and now over sex discrimination. No doubt in the not too distant future they will lose again and again.
There is one thing wrong with British legislation—it forgets that human beings are people. It does not matter whether they are black, white, Catholic, Protestant, male or female—they are all equal. We seem to forget that, so once again we have lost.
Although the Bill contains some good bits, it also contains some awful bits. The Government do not realise that when bathing a new baby, when they want to throw away the water they may throw the baby out with it. In this case, the baby is the baking industry, and I shall discuss that in more detail later.
I am a lawyer, and during the past 20 years an increasing number of women have entered the profession. That is especially true of the Law Society, which is rather more advanced in its attitudes than the Bar, and I have experience of both. Those women have brought to the profession an excellence that is second to none. Law Society examination figures show that at least 50 per cent. of new entrants passing exams are women. Anyone in legal practice knows the way in which women have developed techniques that are of great assistance to the public. Therefore, I am pleased that one good part of the Bill is the removal of restrictions on small businesses and partnerships. — My experience is that the careers of women have been blocked, especially in professional practices, by the failure of older male partners to take them into partnership, which should be the logical development of their careers. The removal of restrictions can only be to the betterment of the profession and, ultimately, will enhance the quality of service to the public. After all, the profession exists to serve the public. I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members would agree that the quality of the profession has been enhanced during the past few years by the increasing number of women and the quality of service that they provide.
The most appalling part of the Bill relates to the baking industry. It is almost discriminatory against men because it takes away a protection for male employees. I know that some large companies would welcome the removal of restrictions so that their factories can churn through the night, the dough can flow and the bread can roll out of the ovens. It does not really matter how long people work through the night. In a civilised society, do we want to condemn people to work all night?

Mr. Gerald Malone: Hear, hear.

Mr. Bermingham: The hon. Gentleman obviously agrees with me. Sometimes when I think about this House I wonder why we are condemned to work all night and why a little civilistation does not creep in occasionally. Perhaps when we have legislated for other sectors we will legislate to amend our working practices to have reasonable hours of work.
In 1954 an enlightened piece of legislation was introduced that placed a number of restrictions on the baking industry. For example, it provided that at night bakeries no one should work between 6 pm and 6 am for more than 26 weeks in a year, or for more than four consecutive weeks during those 26 weeks. The result was that families were not destroyed because the husband had to work all night. There must be a time for families to be together. That was a very sensible piece of legislation, which perhaps did not go far enough.
The matter was considered as recently as 1976, when a report of the Equal Opportunities Commission on health and safety legislation considered whether we should distinguish between men and women.
When night work and the number of hours which one can work in an industry are restricted, the people, male or female, who work in the industry are protected. Clause 5 takes away that sensible social protection. Why should we take it away? Those who work in the industry, and who will have to work much longer hours, do not want the clause. Why should we add it to a Bill which, on the face of it, is quite sensible?
The Bill provides a sense of equality regarding retirement. I am sure that all hon. Members have had


correspondence from female constituents — I have received correspondence from those who work in the gas industry, and others—saying that they do not want to retire at 60. Some women who are fit and healthy want to work longer, and they want freedom of choice. I agree with the hon. Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) that the Bill is enhanced by that provision.
Why should we add clause 5 to the Bill? Clause 5 devalues the Bill, because it takes away the protection that has existed in the baking industry for 32 years. The Government have decided to take away a measure which protects the employees of that industry. The Government have been forced into this legislation. Instead of introducing something worthwhile, they have added a stupid clause. Perhaps they will see sense.

9 pm

Mr. John Evans: I join other hon. Members who have paid tribute to the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mrs. Shields). I compliment her on the remarks she made. It was entirely appropriate that she should make her maiden speech on the Sex Discrimination Bill. I endorse her comment that the House has had many noble sons of this land but not enough daughters. The truth is that the House has hardly any daughters of this land. I hope that, as the years roll by, that will be put right as more women take their place in the House.
The hon. Lady said that she was the first Liberal women Member of Parliament since 1951. I gently remind her that the hon. Lady who was a Liberal Member in 1951, Lady Megan Lloyd George, subsequently joined the Labour party and sat for many years in the House as a distinguished Labour Member. The hon. Lady said that she has an enormous knowledge of her constituency. I am sure that that will stand her in good stead in future in the comments and speeches she will make in the House about her constituency and constituents.
I was a little puzzled at the lion. Lady's remarks at the end of her speech, although I do not blame her for that. She was only carrying out the usual muddled instructions of the leadership of her party. Apparently, the Liberal party has decided that Labour's reasoned amendment does not go far enough. Therefore, it intends to vote against it. I find that rather odd. I should have thought that if the Liberal party thought the amendment did not go far enough, it would have supported it and sought, in Committee, to amend it and stiffen our opposition to the Bill. If the Liberals follow their usual track record, we shall see very little of them when we are in Committee.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: rose——

Mr. John Evans: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, I shall give way to him.
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was a landmark in the political and industrial life of our society. It sought to eradicate generations, even centuries, of discrimination and unequal status suffered by women. That unequal status touched almost every aspect of our society and was probably at its heaviest and worst in employment and economic activity. No one can deny that far too many women were relegated to the unskilled and most menial work and, for their pains, received less remuneration than unskilled men doing similar work. Very few women were promoted to positions of authority over men, or even to

equality with them. Far too few young girls were offered apprenticeships in many of the craft industries. The position has changed somewhat over the past few years. As a sponsored member of the AUEW, I am proud of the fact that a number of young women have served apprenticeships and are craftsmen in our union. They enjoy all the facilities of our great union.
The 1975 Act is not perfect. No one ever claimed that it was, but it was a massive step forward in changing attitudes, especially among men, and it laid down an excellent framework which I expected that successive governments would improve and build on as the years went by and attitudes improved, especially among employers and men.
I certainly expected that, following the election of Britain's first woman Prime Minister in 1979, the cause of women's rights would receive a massive boost. However, as we have all learnt — and as women in particular have learned to their bitter cost—not only is this Prime Minister not remotely interested in promoting women's rights, but she has also presided over a Government who have constantly reduced and undermined the very modest gains that women have made since the passage of the Sex Discrimination Act and the Employment Protection Act.
In that context, it is interesting to note the White Paper that the Paymaster General introduced today; I draw particular attention to paragraph 7.6 which relates to employment law. Here again we see that the Government are intent on further diminishing the rights of women who have given birth to a child and could return to a job within 29 weeks, except if the firm that she worked for had fewer than five employees. The Government now intend to change this limit to fewer than 10. That is another example of how this Government are constantly seeking to reduce the limited rights that women have obtained—and this on the selfsame day as the Second Reading of the Sex Discrimination Bill.
However, when the Government announced their intention to introduce a new Sex Discrimination Bill to fulfil their obligations under the EEC equal treatment directive, all our hopes were renewed that this woman-led Government would at last do something positive to improve the quality of life for working women. We should have known better. As soon as the original Bill was presented in the other place. we saw with dismay that the Government were seizing the opportunity to introduce a deregulation measure to level standards and protection downwards rather than grasping the opportunity to level standards upwards.
In fact, this Bill has the potential to allow even more exploitation than it seeks to remove, while masquerading as a reform of benefit to men and women. In its original form, it was selective and niggardly in its concessions to the Government's obligations to the EEC equal treatment directive and the need to improve the Sex Discrimination Act after 11 years of operation.
Apart from the amendments made to the Sex Discrimination Act in line with the EEC recommendations, the Bill's idea of equality is to bring everyone down to the same level. It seeks to find the lowest common denominator instead of the highest common multiple. It is not rash to say that the Government sought to use the original Act to further their free market philosophy in terms of working practices and conditions. Indeed, when the Bill was first presented in the other place. it made the


Government appear naive—that is a charitable view—foolish, indifferent or cruelly calculating, depending on one's political perspective, when one considers how much it would have left employers and employees to do to resolve differences over hours, conditions and work practices after the Bill had removed previous safeguards.
These points are worth making because the Bill as printed, although by no means perfect, was much improved, thanks to the success of several Lords amendments. I intend to make several points about each clause and to ask several questions to clarify the Government's intentions in relation to the Lords amendments.
Clauses 1 and 2 deal specifically with the objections found in the EEC equal treatment directive. We welcome that. The first is the way in which the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 exempted small firms of five or fewer employees from its provisions as well as employment in households. The clauses do so by removing the exemption for small firms and private households from section 6(3) of the Sex Discrimination Act and by extending section 7(2) to say exactly in what circumstances a man or woman can be considered for employment in a private household. There are few objections to this, although the other place had to force the Government to bring in an amendment to extend the removal of the exemption from small firms to firms with partners as well. Even here, the Secretary of State objected that small firms already had enough on their plates, as he put it, without having to consider legislation to cover discrimination.
Secondly, clause 2 amends section 77 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Section 77 made a contract or part of it void if it contravened the terms of the Act— that is, if it were discriminatory. Clause 2 extends this provision to cover the terms of collective agreements, those with trade unions for example, rules made by employers, other than employment contracts or agreements for entering or dealing with a professional or trade association or authority that confers qualifications.
The clause also amends section 77 to make such agreements or rules void where the effective contract of employment is set out in such a way as to contravene the Equal Pay Act 1970. In effect, this repeals section 3, which had provided for such eventualities to be resolved by reference to the Secretary of State or a Government body. Clause 6 actually repeals it.
There is also a provision to ensure that employers do not get round this simply by removing all rights for men and women — for instance, instead of providing equal holiday pay, the company could take away everybody's holiday pay. That would be a rough form of equal treatment. This clause was further strengthened by a Government amendment, following Opposition objections, to extend it to applicants as well as existing employees, as provided for in the Sex Discrimination Act.
On the surface, this all seemed quite good and reasonable, but a major bone of contention arose from the repeal of section 3 of the Equal Pay Act, which could mean that there would be no machinery for enforcement. The Government argued that, whereas previously disagreements arising from contracts, rules or agreements hingeing on the Equal Pay Act could be referred to the Secretary of State or the Central Arbitration Committee, and individual

agreements drawn up accordingly, now such dealings will simply be void where they infringe the terms of the Equal Pay Act.
Presumably, the Government, somewhat naively—to put it at its kindest — assumed that employers and employees would come to some agreement simply because the force of the law is supposed to be behind the latter. Unfortunately, all the evidence, particularly in relation to wages council awards, blows something of a hole in that theory. Unless the employees are reasonably organised in trade unions, the evidence is that they will lose.
Why will the Government not introduce machinery to make the provisions of clause 2 enforceable? We shall be pressing the Government on that point in Committee, but I should be grateful if the Minister would deal with it tonight. The Government also point out that the reference to industrial tribunals will still be available, but tribunals were not set up for such a purpose — the Central Arbritration Committee was. Many employees find it difficult, time-consuming, expensive and often detrimental to their job prospects if they appeal to a job tribunal as well.
Additionally, we have the new proposition, in today's White Paper, that the employees have to find £25 if they wish to appear before a tribunal. However, if the Government think that the tribunals are a likely and suitable option, they must be assuming that such disagreements will arise. In the circumstances, why not retain the option of arbitration by the CAC?
In its response to the Bill, the Equal Opportunities Commission, in its briefing document of May 1986, said that the Government's approach
relies on a combination of collective bargaining and individual litigation. This will be uncertain and random. The discriminatory provision will not be removed and there is no power to enforce renegotiation of the agreement.
The Opposition agree with that. In 1980, the Equal Opportunities Commission recommended that the Equal Pay Act should be amended
to enable any discriminatory provision, whether direct or indirect, in a collective agreement, pay structure or wages regulation order to be referred to the CAC which should have the power to amend all discriminatory provisions therein.
The Government have not taken the opportunity to incorporate anything of that nature in the Bill.
Clause 3 was inserted in the Bill by the Opposition in the other place. It was designed to stifle, or at least to delay, the implementation of clauses 4 and 5 which seek to remove all restrictions on the employment of women in industry by amending or repealing the Hours of Employment (Conventions) Act 1936, the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1984 and the Factories Act 1961.
As for the Mines and Quarries Act, on Sunday I visited the marvellous exhibition at Wigan pier, "The Way we were in 1900". Many of those who saw photographs and descriptions in that exhibition of working conditions for women in industry, particularly in the mining industry, were shocked at the revelations. I am not suggesting for a moment that those conditions will ever return, but I remind the House, in particular the Government, that the battle to remove such onerous conditions on women was fought manfully for many years not only by women but by men, particularly in the trade union movement.
I agree with the powerful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) who said that women have the right to be protected in certain industrial


conditions. I speak from knowledge of industries such as shipbuilding. ship repairing and steel. Many jobs in those industries can be done by women, but I do not intend to be patronising when I say that I should not like my wife, mother or daughter to have to do certain jobs in those industries. It is essential to retain protection for women in certain areas of industry.
Clause 3 would have retained protection for women until the Government had carried out consultations on the feasibility and desirability of their intentions. They would have been unable to produce a draft report for at least six months and a final report for at least 12 months from the date of Royal Assent. After consultations, the Secretary of State could have made, by statutory instrument, an equal protection order to amend various Acts in order to guarantee equal conditions for men and women at a more considered level than that which would be achieved simply by repealing those Acts, or part of them.
After the consultation procedure and producing a report the Secretary of State could have repealed the provisions of the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954, or the recommendations of the Equal Opportunities Commission or the Health and Safety Commission and made an equal protection order to cover the provisions that had been repealed. The intention of clause 3 was not just to cause delay. It was a positive and beneficial clause. Any intelligent Secretary of State would have welcomed its provisions.
Clause 4 provides for the repeal of certain provisions in the Hours of Employment (Conventions) Act 1936, the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 and the Factories Act 1961 as they relate to restrictions upon women's hours of work. They are all subject to clause 7. Clause 4 will make it possible for women to be employed at all hours of the day and night, all week and in shifts starting and finishing at any time.
If I may put in a personal point here, in the light of the bus deregulation that is about to affect society, women who will not voluntarily move to the new hours but may often find that they are forced into working them will suddenly find that there is no public transport to take them to their homes. The Paymaster General may smile, but he knows as well as I do that that is a prospect facing many areas, particularly the more rural areas of the country.
The Opposition see the Bill as, at the very best, a wasted opportunity to balance the requirements of industry with women's needs and family commitments and to level up conditions of work with those of men instead of simply tearing down existing restrictions on women's working practices. At worst, it is an attempt to remove the protection that many women enjoy in their working conditions and leave the field open for exploitation by certain employers.
The Government apparently argue that so many exemptions have already been made to these provisions that they might as well be repealed. However, the exemptions are not the majority. It should not have been beyond the Government's capabilities to study which industries had made these applications, what their requirements were regarding women's working conditions and how women employees had fared in achieving levelling up.
The Government have argued that the gap in strict definitions of women's working hours and conditions will best be filled by negotiations between employees' trade unions and employers. Unfortunately—I hope that the

truth comes home to them—women have a relatively poor record regarding trade union organisation. Clause 3 would have given the Health and Safety Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission an effective voice in the operation of clauses 4 and 5, particularly in relation to the protection of women workers.
Clause 5 repeals the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954, so removing the restrictions on the hours of work of men in the industry. An anomaly had grown up, in that, while male operatives were still prevented from working certain hours of the night—for their protection, according to the principles of the 1954 Act—exempcions to the Factories Act 1961 had breached those regulations for women. In theory, women can work longer hours in this industry than men. The same argument applies here, however. No strong body of opinion suggests that the 1954 Act is no longer necessary. The opportunity should have been taken to extend to women the protection currently afforded to men in the industry or some combination thereof, perhaps following consultation as under clause 3. This was the argument of the Equal Opportunities Commission.
As the result of the Government's unwillingness to countenance anything but wholesale repeal of existing protection for workers, the Opposition in the other place carried an amendment to protect existing rights of employees—clause 7. This of course is another clause that is to be removed in Committee by the Government.
As I have argued, while removal of existing restrictions on women's freedom to work certain hours removes an element of discrimination. it also removes certain protections previously employed. This applies especially to men in bakeries if the 1954 Act is repealed. In addition, simple repeal would fail to ensure that women continue to have control of the hours that they work to fulfil their domestic commitments. Clause 7, if it were retained, would ensure that employees continued to benefit from existing legislation, despite clauses 4 and 5, unless they agree otherwise in writing. They would also be protected from dismissal for refusing to work hours not countenanced before the Bill was drafted. In an earlier intervention, I pointed out that even under the Shops Bill the Government were willing to accept a clause protecting the rights of shop workers to refuse to work on Sundays without being sacked as a consequence.
The Government also argue that the removal of restrictions under clauses 4 and 5 will not lead to any wholesale changes in working hours and conditions. If that is the case, why bother to repeal the provision? Why not simply continue to allow exemptions where they are deemed necessary for the sake of the industry concerned, so long as workers' rights are protected?
Clause 8, another clause for the chop, arose from an Opposition amendment for the same motives. Assuming that clauses 4 and 5 are passed and carried into effect, clause 8 would have put on an employer the onus
to consider the health, safety, welfare and interests of those employees (particularly employees with domestic and family responsibilities) and to make appropriate provision for their health, safety and welfare having regard to the nature and size of his business.
The clause would have empowered the HSC to draft a code of practice to enable it to fulfil its duties more efficiently.
The adherence of employers to such a code could have been taken into consideration if and when he or she was taken to an industrial tribunal by employees. Under the


code, the employer's duties would have been separate and additional to his or her duties under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The code would have fulfilled a long-standing demand of the Equal Opportunities Commission for a safeguard to be attached to the removal of restrictions on hours of work provisions of the legislation which they saw as being out-dated.
Once again, the Government opposed the amendment, although the code might at least have resolved problems and disagreements resulting from deregulation. The Government also complained that the HSC had no experience of accommodating the domestic arrangements of workers. The Secretary of State argued that it was not the responsibility of the employer to accommodate the workers in that way. Those arguments, especially the latter, can be taken with a pinch of salt, given the economic climate. Many people are willing to take any job, often in desperation. The measures outlined were designed to prevent precisely such exploitation after deregulation.
Although we welcome the Secretary of State's announcement about the pension rights of women, following the judgment in the European Court of Justice, we do not think that it goes far enough. The view of the Equal Opportunities Commission is correct. Although it welcomed the Government's proposal to give women the right to retire at the same age as men, the EOC warned that the Government's failure to tackle the wider problems caused by unequal state pension ages would only add to the confusion and the frustration faced by men and women over retirement.
The significant words of the EOC are:
the Commission believes that a similar amendment will be needed to the Equal Pay Act to keep it in line with the amended SDA. The EOC also welcomes the proposal to give both sexes the right to claim unfair dismissal up to the age of 65, when no normal retirement age is in operation. … However, the Marshall ruling highlights once more the need to equalise the State pension age for men and women. Many men now stop work before 65 and find discrimination and hardship in not being able to claim State pension until they reach 65. The new proposals are likely to make the position worse. For example, a woman between the age of 60 and 64 will not have to pay national insurance contributions and her eventual State pension will be increased for each year that she works over the age of 60. A man will not have this option.
One would have thought that the Government would have taken the opportunity of a Sex Discrimination Bill to put that anomaly right.
The proposal to amend section 47 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, is also mentioned in paragraph 7.7 of the new White Paper "Building Businesses—Not Barriers". Given the nature of everything else in the White Paper, we will consider carefully whatever amendment the Government table in Committee to see precisely what they are driving at.
The Bill as drafted was originally a bad Bill because of its likely effects for the work force. Those effects would have been mitigated as it was amended. However the Government, by announcing that they will remove clauses 3, 7 and 8—proposals which the Opposition will fight in Committee—have made this Bill as bad as it was when first printed.
We believe that the Government should scrap these plans for deregulation and proceed along the lines of consultation and worker protection embodied in the Lords

amendments and the EEC directive. That is why we have tabled our reasoned amendment, which declines to give this inadequate and unsatisfactory Bill a Second Reading. I urge the House to vote for our amendment tonight.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Ian Lang): When my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General and Minister for Employment opened the debate he said that the Sex Discrimination Bill was a further step towards equality of opportunity for men and women. During our wide-ranging debate today it has become clear that there are differences of opinion about some of the detailed provisions of the Bill. I look forward to interesting discussions on these when we consider certain parts of the Bill in Committee.
It is my pleasant duty to welcome the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mrs. Shields). She succeeds the late and sadly missed Mr. John Spence who served, as the hon. Lady said, with distinction in this House. From 1970 he represented the constituents of Sheffield, Heeley, then of Thirsk and Malton and latterly of Ryedale. For 13 years he was a member of the Chairmen's Panel and he was a member and latterly a Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture. If the hon. Lady matches her predecessor's dedication to the interests of her constituents, she will do well. She has already demonstrated a knowledge of her constituency and its problems. Her fluency in presenting that case does her credit. The House will look forward to hearing from her again.
I must begin by taking exception to the Opposition amendment. The amendment tries to hinder the Government from fulfilling our country's international obligations and especially our duty under the treaty to implement EC directives. The first two clauses remedy loopholes which the European Court of Justice found in the Labour Government's Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The Opposition introduced that Act and it has proved itself perishable in the extreme.
Since the Bill was published, the European Court has issued another ruling. This refers to retirement and it requires another amendment to the legislation. The Government have acted with great speed to implement the latest judgment. We issued a consultative document within five weeks of the court's ruling and we expect to have tabled a new clause to the Bill within four months of the ruling. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) must realise that it is not this Government's record at the European Court that is bad. Rather it is the durability and adequacy of the previous Labour Government's legislation that is bad.
The Opposition's motion is not accurate.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister not agree that our track record before the European Court of Justice is appalling? It does not matter which Government introduced which piece of legislation. Some of the pre-1964 legislation has been successfully challenged; some of the 1970–74 legislation has been challenged and there are several cases pending against post-1979 legislation. That is all Tory Government legislation. Does he not agree that when we lose we ought to lose a little more gracefully than we have in the past, especially during the past four years?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman should recognise the speed with which we have reacted to the European Court's ruling. That was a ruling on the inadequacy of legislation passed by the Labour Government.
The Opposition motion is not accurate. It states that we have failed to apply the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to collective agreements. That is not so. A copy of the Bill was sent to the European Commission when it was published so that they could see how we were planning to implement the judgment. We have not been asked to make any changes.
The Government accepted a number of proposals put forward for improving the Bill from another place. For example, there is the improvement which provides for provision in partnerships put forward by the chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission.
The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) accused the Government of yielding to European judgments with bad grace. However, that is evidence of the Government's flexibility in that matter. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, the court ruling did not cover partnerships. That was an improvement to the Bill which my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Employment accepted in another place when it was put forward by Lady Platt. My hon. and noble Friend also made it clear that he opposed discrimination in any size of firm but recognised that small firms do not always have the administrative resources to deal with complex legislation.
The scope of the private homes provision, to which the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) referred, has been clarified following expressions of concern that the original wording was imprecise and could lead to unnecessary litigation. I know that some hon. Members are deeply concerned over what they see as an intrusion by the Bill into private life, but I can assure the House that the Government, and indeed the EC, consider that the principle of respect for private life is fundamental. It will still be possible to choose an employee of a particular sex in circumstances where the job holder would be involved in the household's private life; for example, where the job is to give nursing care or companionship to a member of the family.
Clause 2 has also been improved in another place to provide that discriminatory rules by an employer in respect of applicants for jobs will be void.
There was another interesting debate on equal opportunities in the House last Wednesday. The Government asked the House to take note of three EC proposals on equal opportunities which we regard favourably and to endorse the Government's commitment to the principal of equal treatment. Again, the Opposition put down a quite inaccurate amendment referring to lack of commitment to the principle of equal treatment on the part of the Government, and in particular our so-called obstruction of equal pay for work of equal value. The Government were able to describe the array of provision we have made in all aspects of equal opportunities, in particular our record on getting women into jobs and on improving vocational training opportunities. We also pointed out that we had implemented the European Court ruling on equal pay for work of equal value, which resulted from a gap in the original Labour Government's Equal Pay Act 1970. The Opposition also attempted to criticise the Government for their failure to extend invalid care

allowance to married women, which again was discrimination introduced by the previous Labour Administration.
The Opposition's amendment says that the Bill fails to act on collective agreements. The equal treatment directive requires that any provisions contrary to the principle of equal treatment which are included in collective agreements, individual contracts of employment, internal rules of undertakings or in rules governing the independent occupations and professions, shall be or may be declared null and void or may be amended.
The Government argued before the court that that requirement is already met in relation to collective agreements under United Kingdom law and they argued that on two main grounds. First, "void" must. in the Government's view, mean of no legal effect. Where a collective agreement is not legally binding, as is the case with the vast majority of collective agreements in the United Kingdom, none of its provisions, whether discriminatory or not, is of legal effect. Where exceptionally a collective agreement is made legally binding, section 77 of the Sex' Discrimination Act makes void any term in it which will involve those carrying it out in an act of unlawful sex discrimination.
The court was satisfied that section 77 of the Sex Discrimination Act dealt adequately with legally binding collective agreements but ruled that the directive covers all collective agreements and that there should be corresponding provision for non-binding agreements. Discrimination arises when collective agreements includes single sex terms such as separate provisions for men and women or provisions applicable to one sex only. That is why the Government are proposing in the Bill to amend the Sex Discrimination Act so as to formally void discriminatory terms in present and future collective agreements, whether the terms occur in the same agreements or different agreements between the same parties. It is not thought that there are many such terms in existence today or that they are likely to be negotiated in future.
Therefore, I cannot agree that the clause on collective agreements will not work satisfactorily. Of course we hope that very few discriminatory collective agreements have been entered into. But in so far as they have, the offending terms will be void, and it is in the interests of the parties to negotiate a new non-discrimatory term to fill the void. Until they do, every employee who suffers discrimination as a result of the original term will be able to complain to an industrial tribunal under existing provisions and possibly be awarded compensation or back pay. No sensible negotiators will want to live in such an uncertain situation. But the Bill ensures that the delay in renegotiation will have no adverse effect on the employment contract of an individual employee.
I imagine that there may be interesting discussions in Committee about the need for the Central Arbitration Committee to be involved in enforcement of the provisions of clause 2. I do not want to anticipate those, but must say that having listened carefully to the points put forward by some hon. Members today I am not convinced that such an enforcement mechanism is necessary. We are convinced that we have implemented the European Court judgment and equally convinced that victims of sex discrimination have effective redress through our industrial tribunal system.
We do not need a new system of enforcement for sex discrimination cases, and the European court ruling did not suggest this. Its judgment was essentially a technical one and we are implementing it with this Bill. The court accepted that section 77 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 implemented the directive in relation to legally binding collective agreements, but held that the lack of corresponding provision for non-binding agreements meant that the directive was not fully implemented. In our view, the court saw a formal voiding provision as an important presentational measure which would set the tone for collective agreements and filter through to practical results on the ground. This change implements the court's judgment, and the Government do not see the need to establish a special enforcement procedure beyond what is required of us.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General said at the start of the debate that we wanted to hear the views of the House on the three substantial additions made to this Bill in another place. We have listened to the arguments put forward, but we are still not convinced that the additional clauses are necessary.
The hon. Member for Ipswich spoke about clause 3 which was introduced by an amendment tabled by Lord Wedderburn in the other place. In practice, it will impose further delays before the existing discriminatory restrictions on hours of work can be removed. If the Health and Safety Commission or the Equal Opportunites Commission were so minded, it could prevent the Secretary of State simply repealing legislation under clause 9(3) and force him to follow the procedure set out in the new clause.
This procedure involves a time lapse of at least a year during which a lot must happen. The Secretary of State must conduct extensive consultations with employers and trade unions and he must seek the views of the Health and Safety Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission. He must also publish a draft report of interim proposals, and nothing can happen until a final report is published setting out the proposals for amendments. After all this, the Secretary of State may finally make an equal protection order amending any of the relevant enactments or may carry forward the necessary repeals. It is not clear to us what purpose this further delay would serve. The issue has been discussed for six years, ever since the Equal Opportunities Commission recommended the repeal of the restrictions affecting women in 1979.
Before 1979, the Equal Opportunities Commission had consulted widely and given the whole matter careful consideration. In 1979 the Health and Safety Commission was asked to consider the EOCs proposals on women's hours but has been unable to reach a consensus on how this discriminatory legislation can be reformed. That is why the Government have decided to act now. Further consultation is unlikely to achieve any greater degree of consensus than now exists. Indeed, it is more likely that at the end of the further consultation period that this new procedure would require, the Secretary of State would be no further on than he is now. He would still have to take decisions weighing in the balance the same arguments that the Government have taken into account.
We are not convinced of the case for keeping clause 7, introduced in another place by an amendment tabled by the noble Lord McCarthy. The clause aims to limit the

discretion of industrial tribunals by giving new absolute rights to employees who, at the date of the commencement of the Bill, are subject to the restrictions on working hours and other working conditions which are removed by the Bill. The so-called protection provided by this new clause is to a great extent implicit in existing employment protection legislation, and we wonder whether Opposition fears are not out of all proportion to the size of the problem that this clause is meant to remedy.
The repeal of these hours of work restrictions will not lead to the wholesale imposition of dramatic changes in working hours. A manufacturer will only alter hours if he has the orders to justify it or if circumstances demand it. He is not likely to incur the additional costs that longer or unsocial hours usually involve without good reason, and is certainly unlikely to do so without fully consulting his work force.
Another difficulty stems from the uncertainties of the employer confronted by the new clause. What exactly does it require of him? If he lets things ride, then presumably his employees will continue to have their conditions dictated by the restrictions, and he must continue to shoulder the bureaucratic burden of record keeping, posting notices and so on. If he attempts to rid himself of this burden, he must secure the agreement of each of his workers, but they are unlikely to give this until they know precisely what they are letting themselves in for. Either way, the employer is stuck with the burden. As his work force turns over, new employees will be taken on and will accept employment on the terms that he offers.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister not agree that in a society which has between 4 million and 5 million people looking for work, often the employers are in a better bargaining position to enforce changes of hours? Therefore, the employee will be in a worse position, because he will know that 10 or 15 people want his job and that one of them will get it if he seeks to stand up for his existing rights.

Mr. Lang: That is certainly not how we see the picture, nor does the evidence bear out the hon. Gentleman's case.
The employer ends up with a two-tier work force, some restricted, others not. That will create major administrative costs and will lead to greater inflexibility with all the negative effects that that may have on job creation. Nor is it clear how the rights given by the new clause would sit with the current systems of exemptions that employers have. Employees who are now working at times which would be prohibited, were it not for the special exemption order, will no doubt have those very restrictions incorporated into their contract of employment. The new clause thereafter allows more of the flexibility which the present far from perfect system offers.
In some ways the most worrying of the three new clauses is clause 8, introduced by Lady Platt's amendment in another place. The all-encompassing nature of the new clause on all employers, not just those who are at present subject to the hours of work legislation—which is the subject of the Bill—makes its implications all the more profound. My Department has always encouraged employers to consider the welfare and interests of their employees in the furtherance of good industrial relations.
We go much further than encouragement when considering people's health and safety. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 puts all employers under a


general duty to ensure the health, safety and welfare at work of all employees. But this amendment goes beyond that. It imposes as a new statutory requirement on an employer the duty to consider the interests of employees and, in particular, the interests of his employees with domestic and family responsibilities where changes in working hours are contemplated. It would be his duty to consider the health, safety and welfare of his employees, not only at work, but elsewhere.
There is no evidence to suggest that there is any need to place an inflexible statutory obligation on employers, requiring an approach which, to all intents and purposes, most adopt already. To do so would impose a burden on employers which, even if the duty were clear cut, would put further strain on the willingness of enterprise to expand and create jobs. That point has been impressed on us by several different employers federations since the clause was introduced in another place. For all those reasons, we remain unconvinced that the three clauses are necessary, but we shall give further thought to what has been said today before Committee stage, and we look forward to contributions from hon. Members in Committee.
Today we published a White Paper on deregulation. As it makes clear, the rights of people in employment must be balanced against the needs of those who are unemployed. I say that particularly to the hon. Members for Barking and for St. Helens, South, who referred to this publication. We believe that too-strict regulation of part-time work and return to work after giving birth works to the detriment of unemployed women, especially the one third of unemployed women who are seeking part-time jobs. In any event, only one twelfth of women exercise their right to return to work after maternity leave. Some small firms will continue to be able to accommodate that in future, but keeping a job open can be highly disruptive and expensive for a small firm. We do not want to discourage them from creating jobs or from offering jobs to women.
When the Bill is passed there will be no qualifying period in terms of size, hours or years for complaints under the Equal Pay Act 1970 or the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 by women who have won cases under the Sex Discrimination Act where they were dismissed for reasons associated with pregnancy when a man in ill health would not have been dismissed. The White Paper will contribute to a balance between job protection and job creation.
During the debate some hon. Members have argued that of all the restrictions on women's hours, one in particular continues to be needed, and that is the restriction on women's night work. They have been at pains to stress that, although night work may be necessary in certain limited circumstances, it is nevertheless bad for all employees, women and men alike. For that reason, they would have us believe that, far from removing restrictions on women's hours, we should extend legislative controls to men.
Yet an objective assessment of the available evidence does not justify the dogmatic statement that all night work is harmful. In reality, the evidence on the effects of night work and long hours is inconclusive. In 1978, Dr. J. Harrington conducted a critical review of the major references, including the work reported on by the ILO report, "Night Work", relating to shift work and health for the Employment Medical Advisory Service of the Health and Safety Executive. He concluded that the evidence of any major effect on health was slim. Since the publication

of this report there has been no new evidence to change its conclusions. Certainly there is no evidence to suggest that the effects on health are different for women than for men.
We must not lose sight of the vital role played by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. This comprehensive Act which outlines the new approach for regulating health, safety and welfare in the work place, recommended by the Robens committee, has now taken centre stage, leaving the older legislation such as the Factories Act 1961 and the Mine and Quarries Act 1954 to play subsidiary roles. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act imposes on employers a general duty to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of all employees at work.
I cannot emphasise strongly enough that the repeals which we envisaged would not have discharged employers from their responsibilities to consider the effects on employees of hours of work, including any changes even had the Bill emerged unchanged from another place.
Some claim that the repeals in clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill originate exclusively from our wish to remove the burden on business. They claim that, in our eyes, the removal of discrimination is very much by the way. That view misrepresents our position. We are committed to removing discrimination so that women enjoy the same opportunities as men. We are committed to erasing the out-of-date view of women enshrined in this legislation —the paternalistic view that women are not capable of deciding for themselves the hours they are prepared to work. We believe it is high time that women shed. this somewhat second-class status. Women in factories deserve and want the same freedom of choice on hours as the men whom they work alongside. Surely there is no justification nowadays for different treatment regarding the hours that men and women work.
As well as distinguishing between men and women, the restrictions also mean that women are treated differently according to where they work. Today there are more than 9 million working women. Of those, some 7·5 million work where there are no legislative restrictions on the hours worked. This includes jobs in hospitals, in the police, hotels, catering and in the entertainment industry. With such work there are, inevitably, unsocial hours.

Mr. Evans: Low-paid jobs.

Mr. Lang: The other 1·5 million women work in manufacturing where there are statutory controls on the hours worked. The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) mutters, from a sedentary position, about low pay. He ought to be aware—I have told him on several occasions from the Dispatch Box—that the average pay for men has risen substantially above the rate of Inflation in the past seven years but the average pay of women has risen by substantially more. The gap is closing considerably.

Mr. Evans: Will the Minister concede that, notwithstanding that what he says may be true, the average wage of women, particularly in the industries that he has mentioned is still substantially below men and that such jobs are officially classified as low-paid jobs?

Mr. Lang: The average wages for women are indeed lower than the average wages for men, but that is because they tend to do different jobs which are in themselves inherently lower paid than those for men.
I repeat to the hon. Gentleman, yet again, that as we have escaped the controls of the Labour Government's wage control policy and the distortions that that created, the wages of women have substantially advanced and the divergence between the advance of women's wages and men's wages has been very much to the credit of the Government.
We have also been accused of over-emphasising the need for deregulation. It is claimed that we are obsessed with that principle, even at the expense of removing protection from what some see as vulnerable sectors of the work force. The restrictions on women's working hours do encumber those employers who have to run their businesses under such controls. The system of enforcement is bureaucratic in the extreme. It requires employers to keep numerous records, post forms and notices which need continuous updating to show any minor changes.
The system of exemption imposes another burden. Some 200,000 women work at times which would be prohibitive but for the existence of special exemption orders. Of that figure, some 80,000 are working at some time during the night. The restrictions have little practical effect and the paper chase involved in obtaining an exemption is just the sort of red tape which should be cut away. It achieves nothing positive and only hampers the employer and costs the taxpayer money to administer.
Much of today's debate has hinged on the baking industry. I was interested to learn of the talents not only of my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General but also my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) who demonstrated considerable skills and knowledge of the industry.
We have heard arguments pressing us to extend the coverage of the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954 to include women instead of repealing it. We believe, however, that extension would be nonsense. It has been argued that repeal will remove a valuable protection for health and safety of the industry but the Act originated not so much on grounds of health and safety as to resolve longstanding problems that the industry had experienced in reaching sensible and workable agreements on hours of work. There is no observable evidence that the Act's provisions have in any way improved the health and safety of bakery workers; nor is there any evidence that its repeal will have a detrimental effect. More than two thirds of the industry's work force is now covered by the terms of collective agreements which bring exemption from the provisions of the Act.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, North spoke of workers in the baking industry working for 60 hours a week. That figure is simply not accurate. We have received representations from the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union saying that the average working week in the bread, flour and confectionery sector is 49·9 hours. Even if the hon. Gentleman's figure were correct, it would tend to prove that the 1954 Act has served not to protect the interests of bakery workers. There are at least four other sectors of manual wages for which the average weekly working hours, including overtime, are higher than those in the bread and confectionery industry.
There is no reason to believe that, without the underpinning given to the collective agreements by the Act, employers will seek to impose substantially different

hours of work. In our consultations with employers, the Federation of Bakers assured us that there was no prospect of the sort of job losses that the bakers' union fears. There is simply not the level of overmanning in the industry which such numbers would imply. It seems to us pointless to extend the Act to cover women. On the contrary, we believe that the Act is largely redundant and ripe for repeal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) welcomed what the Government have done—and the fact that they have done it quickly—as a result of the Helen Marshall case concerning state and occupational pensions. I appreciate that the House is eager for progress towards equality in state and occupational retirement pensions. The European Court of Justice ruling in the Marshall case did not affect either. Even if it had, no Government could have produced a workable legislative solution on so complex a subject in the space of a few weeks, as we have done with the immediate issues raised in that case.
Hon. Members who were in the House last Wednesday evening will know that a draft EC directive on equal treatment in occupational social security schemes is under discussion in Europe and likely to be adopted soon if certain amendments favoured by the United Kingdom and other member states are made.
As for our proposal to abolish the requirement for training bodies to obtain designation under section 47 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, some anxiety has been expressed that this will open the floodgates to training for women only and therefore deny men opportunities to train for the work of their choice. Section 47 also allows the provision of training for men only in work in which they are under-represented. It is true that all the bodies designated so far have applied to us with women's training in mind. That is no doubt because traditionally male jobs are often more skilled and higher paid, and women are more likely to aspire to them than men are to, say, typing.
Some people feel that this past discrimination should be overcome by insisting that a quota of jobs should be reserved for women. We do not accept that. Jobs should be filled only on grounds of merit, not of sex. Nevertheless, if women are to have the opportunity to compete for jobs and contribute to the economy on equal terms, they may need special training.
The Government want there to be an economy in which firms, large and small, can expand and thereby win extra business and create new jobs. To this end, we are already winning the battle against inflation. If we are to exploit our successes, we must free enterprise. Unnecessary restrictions and regulations are a positive hindrance to a firm's ability to make the most of its opportunities and therefore create jobs. We must ensure that we create the right environment in which enterprise can thrive and prosper. I believe that the Government's record on freeing past discrimination about women's right to work has been creditable and to our advantage.
It is just over 10 years since the Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts came into force. We do not claim that this second Sex Discrimination Bill will be as far-reaching as the first, but it is another step forward on the road to genuine equality of opportunity between the sexes and I believe that we should all welcome its introduction to the House. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the Opposition amendment and to support the Bill's Second Reading.

Question put, That the amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 68, Noes 155.

Division No. 194]
[10 pm


AYES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Litherland, Robert


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
McKelvey, William


Bermingham, Gerald
McNamara, Kevin


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
McTaggart, Robert


Boyes, Roland
McWilliam, John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Buchan, Norman
Mikardo, Ian


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Clarke, Thomas
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Clay, Robert
Nellist, David


Clelland, David Gordon
O'Neill, Martin


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Patchett, Terry


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Pike, Peter


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Prescott, John


Corbett, Robin
Raynsford, Nick


Corbyn, Jeremy
Richardson, Ms Jo


Cunningham, Dr John
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Deakins, Eric
Rooker, J. W.


Dewar, Donald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Dormand, Jack
Sedgemore, Brian


Dubs, Alfred
Skinner, Dennis


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Snape, Peter


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Soley, Clive


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Spearing, Nigel


Foster, Derek
Straw, Jack


Heffer, Eric S.
Tinn, James


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Wareing, Robert


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Weetch, Ken


Hoyle, Douglas
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)



Janner, Hon Greville
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lamond, James
Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Mark Fisher.


Leighton, Ronald





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Galley, Roy


Alton, David
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Arnold, Tom
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Ashby, David
Glyn, Dr Alan


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Beith, A. J.
Ground, Patrick


Bellingham, Henry
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Best, Keith
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hancock, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Hanley, Jeremy


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Harris, David


Bruinvels, Peter
Harvey, Robert


Buck, Sir Antony
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Butterfill, John
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hayes, J.


Carttiss, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hind, Kenneth


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Coombs, Simon
Holt, Richard


Cormack, Patrick
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Crouch, David
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Dorrell, Stephen
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Durant, Tony
Jessel, Toby


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Johnston, Sir Russell


Favell, Anthony
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Forth, Eric
Kennedy, Charles


Franks, Cecil
Key, Robert


Freeman, Roger
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Freud, Clement
King, Rt Hon Tom


Gale, Roger
Kirkwood, Archy





Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Silvester, Fred


Knowles, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lang, Ian
Speed, Keith


Latham, Michael
Speller, Tony


Lawrence, Ivan
Spencer, Derek


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lord, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Lyell, Nicholas
Steel, Rt Hon David


Mac Kay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Steen, Anthony


Major, John
Stern, Michael


Malins, Humfrey
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Malone, Gerald
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Marlow, Antony
Sumberg, David


Mather, Carol
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Maude, Hon Francis
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Terlezki, Stefan


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Meadowcroft, Michael
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Moate, Roger
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Tracey, Richard


Murphy, Christopher
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nelson, Anthony
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Newton, Tony
Waddington, David


Normanton, Tom
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Ottaway, Richard
Waldegrave, Hon William


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Walden, George


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)
Wallace, James


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Waller, Gary


Portillo, Michael
Ward, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Watts, John


Powley, John
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Price, Sir David
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Raffan, Keith
Wheeler, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Wolfson, Mark


Rowe, Andrew
Wood, Timothy


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Yeo, Tim


Sayeed, Jonathan



Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Tellers for the Noes:


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Mr. Michael Neubert and Mr. Peter Lloyd.


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)



Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 41 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — SEX DISCRIMINATION BILL [Lords] [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Sex Discrimination Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase which is attributable to so much of that Act as relates to retirement or unfair dismissal in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)
That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Quota and Other Reliefs) (Amendment) Order 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 787), dated 1st May 1986, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st May, be approved.


That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (No. 2) (Amendment No. 3) Order 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 813), dated 8th May 1986, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th May, be approved. —[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Question agreed to.

LAND REGISTRATION BILL, [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 69(6) (Second Reading Committees). That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — DHSS Offices (North-West)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Mr. Terry Fields: L: The topic of this Adjournment debate is the staffing in the Department of Health and Social Security offices in the north-west. However, the argument could equally apply throughout the country, although I shall confine my remarks to the north-west. I am sure that the workers and claimants at those offices wish me to express my gratitude to you, Mr. Speaker, for selecting this debate, as opposed to the lottery that takes place in the Lobby.
The debate has been prompted by, first, workers in DHSS offices and members of the Civil and Public Services Association, both regional and national. I was fortunate to attend the CPSA conference a fortnight ago, when I was able to discuss the problems at the DHSS offices with some of its representatives. Secondly, and perhaps more tragically, it is prompted by the continuous and increasing pressure on my constituents and those of other hon. Members ——

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Where are they?

Mr. Fields: Exactly. It is opportune that we should discuss this matter, given the Fowler review that went through the House only last week, and which is now on its way to another place. However, the importance of the issue goes far beyond that piece of legislation. It involves recent history at DHSS offices and the seriousness of the crisis in them which demands immediate action by the Government. That may appear a vain hope, given the Government's record in other areas of legislation, but the issue must be aired and highlighted so that we can expose and warn of the calamity facing claimants and DHSS employees alike.
The DHSS offices in the north-west are living on borrowed time. While unemployment has tripled during the past five years and claims for social security benefit have mushroomed, the staff numbers have been ruthlessly cut. One in four — that is, 25 per cent. — of social security claimants are being paid too little. That was shown in a study done only 18 months ago. An even larger proportion of people face long delays in receiving payments. Members of the CPSA employed in the offices have suffered because of cuts in jobs and have been the victims of the Department's crisis management. Massive abuse of overtime has taken place to cover up staff deficiencies in those offices.
While the problem centres on the north-west it has implications nationally, to a greater or lesser degree. Statistics that hide the human misery that exists on both sides of the DHSS counter, but especially that of the customer, nevertheless underline the scale of the problem. I shall cite a few statistics. In the Breckfield road office of the DHSS, which is in my constituency, people must queue for an average of two and a half to three hours a week to receive attention at the supplementary benefit reception. The reception frequently remains open until 5.45 pm, which is well beyond its closing time. Overtime has been worked solidly in that office since October 1974. There is a high staff turnover — 32 per cent. — which causes problems. Staff are unable to tackle the demands for unemployment benefit and other benefits. There has


been a diminution in the service that can be provided to the public. Since July 1985, 1,600 supplementary benefit clerical visits have been abandoned.
One cannot even get through to the office on the telephone. As a Member of Parliament representing thousands of people in the area, I cannot even make contact with DHSS offices. I cannot make contact with the Breckfield road office because of the crisis there with problems in the working routine. Frequently, members of staff take a day s sick leave because of the pressure place on them. On average, there is a backlog of 400 cases for supplementary benefit.
Let us consider the number of hours of overtime worked in the Huyton office and in offices in other parts of Merseyside. In 1983–84, 2,235 hours of overtime were worked. In the six months April to September 1985, 12,950 hours of overtime were worked. That increased overtime kept the offices afloat. Without it, the offices would have gone under. The claims are piling up. One has only to visit some of those offices to see their needs and the amount of work outstanding.
A massive increase in supplementary benefit work load has been put on the backs of DHSS workers. The inadequacy of staffing arrangements has led to serious problems in the offices.
The nonsense of the Department's complementing system is clear. I shall compare offices in the Merseyside area with those in Cheshire — the St. Helens and Warrington offices. Since May 1980, the St. Helens office has had an increase of 9,098 supplementary benefit claims which has been accompanied by an inadequate increase of 15 staff. Warrington has had a greater increase—that is 9,237—of additional claims in the same period and has had a cut of four staff.
One might think that the problem is peculiar to the north-west; it is not. Even the offices which are on the doorstep of the House of Commons, such as Bloomsbury, Westminster, Chelsea, and Kensington, have a high staff turnover. I am told that Bloomsbury has an 80 per cent. staff turnover. Instead of trainees receiving the requisite 13 weeks' training. they are given only two weeks' training. They are then asked to shore up a crumbling system which is causing problems inside and outside the offices. When 50 people go inside the Bloomsbury office, the office closes and no further people are dealt with. People go along to that office at 7 o'clock in the morning and queue up outside, in all sorts of weather, to have their claims dealt with. A similar picture applies nationally.
The unions have campaigned for more staff. They were told by management and the Department that the system for establishing the needs of their offices was unscientific and should not be considered with any seriousness. They have been told that on the complementing system 2,000 jobs are already in post, over and above the needs of the Department. How is that figure arrived at? Management says that the unscientific way in which these numbers are computerised is absolutely wrong, but two major disputes have created a backlog within the DHSS system, and these distort the statistics that management and the Department use. The major disputes referred to are in Newcastle and Washington in the north-east.
Secondly, there has been no updated complementary review since 1980 or 1981, or no firm base to commence the calculation. Therefore, if management and the Department are accusing the unions of wrong analysis, the same argument applies to them.
At local office level there is also inadequate validation of statistics because of pressure, fewer workers and the work load with which the reduced number of staff is expected to deal. Unrecorded work is carried out because of the pressure of the increased number of claimants, and there is lack of training in the offices to which I am referring because of stretched resources. A high turnover is adding to the problem.
A management report, which confirms what the workers are saying, underlines and adds to the confusion that is now occurring in the DHSS. The management report on the inadequacies of the system and the way in which the numbers are computed says that misrepresentation of, or lack of attention to, instructions is a major contributory factor in the inaccuracies of statistics; that instructions were contained in several different codes that were sometimes confused and contradictory; that codes were not widely available to all staff concerned:, that peripheral sections were often forgotten; and that staff were inadequately trained in statistics. Therefore, the fault lies with both management and the Department for not allowing the time or the manpower to deal with the problems affecting those in the DHSS offices.
Overtime worked in the Department is an absolute scandal. On the one hand the Government tell the Prison Officers Association that it must cut overtime because it is a restrictive practice, while in DHSS offices they are advocating overtime to cover up staff deficiencies. Such deficiencies are clearly shown by the use of casual workers in DHSS offices. In the north-west region, the number of casuals employed in the period ending 17 December 1985 amounted, on management's figures, to 16,062 man days in the red, and overtime amounted to 73,694 man days in the red. Massive overspending is taking place in respect of overtime and casual workers, as a result of which the lack of full-time workers is being masked. Thee should be more permanent jobs in those offices, not to put bottoms on seats but to deal with the backlog of work—current work and the increasing work brought about directly by the policies of this Government who are creating unemployment at every turn.
I am aware—and the Minister will no doubt point out—that nationally it has been agreed that 5,000 jobs should be introduced into the DHSS. But this is only an interim measure, and on analysis it is not the true figure. As I have already said, 2,000 of those jobs are already in post, although the Department claims that they are supposedly in addition to complement.
Of the remaining figure, 500 have already been designated — according to reports, with a ring fence around them — to deal with fraud in the DHSS. In reality, we are, therefore, talking about only 2,500 jobs nationally.
However, it has been calculated that the north-west needs 2,100 jobs. Therefore, the number proposed by the Department will in no way match up to the needs of the claimants and those already working in the industry. This is based on direct experience at the sharp end of things, not on fanciful, dreamt-up and inaccurate figures conditioned by Treasury restrictions on the DHSS. Workers and management have assessed the needs in the Department and feel that 15,000 jobs are required to cope with the situation, and they have proved the need for these people. The amount of overtime and casual work being done is outrageous.
The Fowler review will not be reported for another 18 months, and on current analysis that review, given the background that I have set out, will not match the needs of the DHSS and the claimants. A decent level of manpower in the Department can be arrived at only by a working out and analysing of the problem by the departmental managers and the trade unions representing the workers, not by anticipating or forecasting.
To date, there has been good will from the staff, but it has been undermined by the crisis of management. I am informed by those representing the workers that good will will cease soon if management continues to exercise discipline in a macho way, and to cut back on various practices.
The Fowler review has prompted the enrolment of 20,000 casual workers to deal with the interim arrangements, but as the situation becomes more critical because of the Government's policy, the 15,000 necessary extra jobs in the Department seem impossible to achieve. This has been exacerbated by two upratings in the recent past, and by the chaos and further pressure on the reduced numbers working in the offices. We are told that technology is coming in, but both workers and claimants in the offices feel that this removes the personal approach in dealing with what are often complex matters, about which the general public is not aware.
Workers in the industry are on extremely low rates of pay and on average their take-home pay is between £80 and £85 a week. The annual salary starts at £2,898 and if one works for 20 years, one's salary can rise to about £7,000 a year. Such low pay, coupled with ill health because of the demands of the work, is putting pressure on the workers, who want action.
Claimants are feeling the effect as well. They are not getting that to which they are entitled, and are suffering because they are those least able to look after themselves. Nobody willingly goes along, cap in hand, to the DHSS asking for a handout, having to be means-tested before getting that to which he is entitled. The effect on claimants is catastrophic for families, particularly in my area. The Government and the system that they represent are creating the bad situation and punishing the people who fall into it for crimes of which they are not guilty. That is another factor that underlines my point.
Have the Government anticipated in their review of the DHSS system the fact that already staffing does not match up to the 4 million unemployed, and that that number will increase, with the expected loss of work in shipyards, British Rail and other industries? How do the Government think that the offices will cope with an increasingly bad situation, in which there is no hope for British industry, more and more redundancies, and more people coming into the offices?
On behalf of the people whom I represent I warn the Government of two things. First, there has been a build-up of opposition to the Fowler review, and the cuts in benefits that will result. Secondly, not only are the workers in the offices distressed about this, but pensions organisations, young persons, one-parent families, the unemployed, students and the trade unions in general are beginning to mount a campaign in opposition to the Government and the Fowler cuts, which will affect them, their families and lifestyles.
If this problem is not tackled, the trade unions that represent those who work in DHSS offices will respond on behalf of the overworked, underpaid and, in some cases, abused members, and will defend the health and well-being of those whom they represent by resorting to a call for industrial action. The workers have had more than enough. Their health is suffering because of an insufficient number of staff to deal with the increasing workload. That will force the Government to act in the interests of the claimants.
I am not precipitating this action. I am merely explaining the position. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State visits many DHSS offices, but he ought to visit the Merseyside area and the north-west. He would see that piles of claims are not being dealt with, which means that those who rely upon DHSS finance just to exist are suffering extreme deprivation and poverty.
Last year there were 200 strikes in DHSS offices, but this year it will not be the so-called militant areas that will take industrial action. Moderate areas — Wales, the south-west—and places such as Woking will be taking industrial action. The call for industrial action is coming from people in Surrey, Hampshire and Lewes on the south coast. They are demanding that the unions should do something about the crisis. The CPSA has a 10:1 majority in favour of industrial action. It accepts the interim 5,000 jobs—or the 2,500 jobs, to be perfectly honest, given the fiddling that is already going on. However, it is prepared to struggle on behalf of its members.
I warn the Government that my constituents, those in other constituencies in the north-west, the claimants and the trade unions are demanding that the Government should act before a complete breakdown occurs within the system and in society in general. Unless the Government accept their responsibilities, industrial action will have a most damaging effect on those who rely upon social security benefit.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Major): The hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) has raised important matters in this Adjournment debate, and I am glad that he has done so.
During his speech he made some contentious remarks with which he would not expect me to agree, and I do not. However, I hope he will permit me to say that I congratulate him upon the moderate and reasonable way in which he put his case. He touched on many matters that are of concern to him, to my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and to me. He referred to his concern about staffing levels in local offices of the DHSS and, understandably, he concentrated his remarks on the offices in the north-west with which he is most familiar.
The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to hear that I agree with some of his remarks. He and I agree that the Government must obtain and sustain a modern, effective and efficient social security system. That objective is at the root of many of the Government's policies. It was at the root of the social security reviews that resulted in the Social Security Bill which received its Third Reading earlier this week.
We regard the delivery to the public of an efficient, effective and, above all, modern social security system as a critical part of the Department's plans for the next few


years. That is why we have embarked on the largest computerisation programme that western Europe has ever seen. The reform of benefits must be matched by the modernisation of operations. We are making quick progress with our strategic plan to computerise social security operations. By doing so, we aim to increase efficiency, to reduce administrative costs and, above all. to provide a better service to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and to the constituents of every right hon. and hon. Member. Better conditions for the staff and a better service for the public underlie the great structural changes that we are seeking to make in the operations of the systems.
Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman implied — although I am not sure that he said it directly—it is my experience, having spent a lot of time visiting local offices up and down the country, that by and large staff seemed to welcome increased computerisation because they see it as the door to a better service to the public, to which they as well as we are committed.
In the general realm of providing a better service, we are currently examining the national and regional organisation staff complement and the means of distributing that complement to every local office. It involves an in-depth review of a large sample of local offices to study the manpower requirements. This is being done in about 20 per cent. of all our local offices.
I wish to make one point relating to the social security review at the outset. I understand that there are legitimate points of political controversy in the social security review about which the hon. Gentleman and I would not agree. However, there is one point on which we might agree. Whatever levels of benefits and other contentious matters may be attached to that review, the structure of the changes in the social security system that we propose has been broadly welcomed not only by both sides of the House but by trade unions and by the staff. That is a great advance if we are in the business of improving the service to the public and the conditions of service of the staff.

Mr. Terry Fields: The Minister mentioned the review of 20 per cent. of offices. Does he not realise that the use of computers takes away the personal aspect in dealing with people's claims? Can he give the assurance that, when the review is undertaken, the CPSA and other representative bodies will be brought in to make an analysis, because they are at the sharp end? A thorough job must be done because the figures do not match the needs.

Mr. Major: When the hon. Gentleman talks of personal service, he overlooks one important point. The most important expectation of a man or woman arriving at the counter in a DHSS office is to receive a response to the request being made and the assistance that is needed. One of the great difficulties at present is that, without a modern computerised system, it is frequently not possible to track down the case papers and give an answer or deal with the client's needs and claims as swiftly as possible. Computerisation, far from being impersonal, it is the key to providing the standard of service that both the hon. Gentleman and I would wish to see become available to the public. I am bound to say to the hon. Gentleman that in my judgment that is the overwhelming view not only of the politicians and administrators but of the staff who work in the local offices, to whom I have spoken in recent months.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the staffing level and rather disparagingly, if I may say so, of the increase in complement. He is correct that there is an increase in complement of 5,000 staff in the local officers. These were given recently in two stages. The first was in February and the second was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in early March. Of that complement, the north-western region has received 661 posts, which is a substantial share of the increase. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Breckfield in his constituency and some of the difficulties there. Before October 1985 the complement was 134. The October 1985 figure was 142. The proposed allocation for 1986–87 is 164 posts, an increase of 30 posts in a period of six months before we have completed the in-depth complement review that is in hand. We recognise the special circumstances that exist in some inner London and inner city areas. The hon. Gentleman's constituency may have similar pressures. We have sought to reflect that in the increase in staff complement by 5,000.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman may to a degree be reassured about the in-depth complement review that is under way and that we hope will produce results early next year. The 5,000 staff are "on account" of that complement review. Although the hon. Gentleman may not regard that as sufficient, I hope that he will at least acknowledge that it is a significant indication of the Government's determination to support the delivery of benefits through local offices.
The size of that substantial increase was not just plucked out of the air, nor has the distribution of the additional staff been accomplished without a recognition of the problems faced by particular types of local office in particular localities. Both decisions were based on firsthand assessment. They were not just guesses, although inevitably, pending the results of the complement review. there must be elements of judgment at this stage.
The hon. Gentleman touched on the fact that a great deal has often been made of the increased workloads with which local offices have had to deal. Of course the hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that in some parts of the social security system there has been a substantial increase in workloads. I would not deny that for a second. But it is also true—and the hon. Gentleman did not mention this — that there have been reductions in workloads elsewhere, notably the equivalent of 3,342 posts following the introduction of statutory sick pay and 2,445 post following the introduction of the housing benefit scheme. To obtain a true picture of the work/staff ratio, the hon. Gentleman and everyone else who wishes to have a true bill in these matters must take into account those changes as well.
I and my colleagues remain absolutely committed to matching staff to workloads. We have put that on record before, and I am happy to reaffirm it to the hon. Gentleman this evening. The injection of 5,000 staff is only the culmination of several increases in recent months — an extra 3,800 staff to offset the effects of the Newcastle strike, an extra 1,900 staff through the normal operation of the complementing system mainly directed towards the increased supplementary benefit work that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and an extra 733 staff to match increased workloads.
I shall come to a premature conclusion because we are running out of time. Many of the problems were due in no small part to the extraordinary complexities of the present


social security system. Those complexities will be alleviated significantly by the changes to be brought about by the Social Security Bill which had its Third Reading in the House earlier this week. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.